Comparison between tapered and cylindrical implants in the posterior regions of the mandible: A prospective, randomized, split‐mouth clinical trial focusing on implant stability changes during early healing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Companies affirm that tapered implants show adequate initial stability, while their installation in the lower arch is uncommon in clinical practice. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of tapered and cylindrical implants and to study their effect on bone site characteristics and peri-implant health during healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The implant site dimensions were assessed by linear measurements using CBCT prior to the installation of 40 implants in the posterior mandible (20 tapered and 20 cylindrical). The bone type was registered during drilling via the surgeon's tactile perception, following the classification of Lekholm and Zarb. Primary stability (PS) was determined by the insertion torque (IT) and the implant stability quotient (ISQ). Secondary stability (SS) and the peri-implant health was monitored for 3 months through the visible plaque index (VPI), the peri-implant inflammation (PI), the probing depth index (PDI), and the gingival bleeding index (GBI). Significant differences were investigated with t-tests for independent samples, chi-square tests or Fisher's exact test. Pearson's correlation test was used to investigate the relationship between the bone site characteristics and PS (IT and ISQ), as well as the relationships between IT and ISQ for each implant type. RESULTS: Tapered and cylindrical implants showed no significant differences for any outcome variable (P > .05). A significant decrease in ISQ was observed after 7 days of healing (P = .0002), followed by a gradual increase beginning at 21 days (P = .0010) until the last follow-up time at 90 days (P = .0319). The cortical height was correlated with IT; while medullary bone dimensions were correlated with the PS as evidenced by the ISQ values. The insertion torque was significantly correlated with the PS only for the cylindrical dental implants. CONCLUSIONS: Tapered and cylindrical implants have similar biological behavior during the healing process. Bone site characteristics can influence insertion torque and implant stability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".