Changes in Implant Stability Using Different Site Preparation Techniques: Twist Drills versus Piezosurgery. A Single‐Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the present investigation was to longitudinally monitor stability changes of implants inserted using traditional rotary instruments or piezoelectric inserts, and to follow their variations during the first 90 days of healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial was conducted on 20 patients. Each patient received two identical, adjacent implants in the upper premolar area: the test site was prepared with piezosurgery, and the control site was prepared using twist drills. Resonance frequency analysis measurements were taken by a blinded operator on the day of surgery and after 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 56, and 90 days. RESULTS: At 90 days, 39 out of 40 implants were osseointegrated (one failure in the control group). Both groups showed an initial decrease in mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) values: a shift in implant stability to increasing ISQ values occurred after 14 days in the test group and after 21 days in the control group. The lowest mean ISQ value was recorded at 14 days for test implants (97.3% of the primary stability) and at 21 days for the control implants (90.8% of the primary stability). ISQ variations with respect to primary stability differed significantly between the two groups during the entire period of observation: from day 14 to day 42, in particular, the differences were extremely significant (p < .0001). All 39 implants were in function successfully at the visit scheduled 1 year after insertion. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that ultrasonic implant site preparation results in a limited decrease of ISQ values and in an earlier shifting from a decreasing to an increasing stability pattern, when compared with the traditional drilling technique. From a clinical point of view, implants inserted with the piezoelectric technique demonstrated a short-term clinical success similar to those inserted using twist drills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".