Cited by 1Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesDental materials and restorationsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Retrospective Evaluation of Peri-Implant Marginal Bone Level of Reduced Diameter Implants by Mixed Model Analysis

Henn, Paul, Gehrke, Peter, Happe, Arndt, Neugebauer, Jörg·2024·The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

Abstract

Purpose To conduct a retrospective study on the marginal bone level (MBL) of reduced diameter implants (RDIs) to analyze them in the context of various surgical and prosthetic treatment strategies using heterogeneous data from a private practice. Materials and methods A total of 123 patients were treated with 326 implants. Of those implants, 247 of them were RDIs, and the remaining 79 implants were standard-diameter implants (SDIs) as patient-related controls. The mean observation time was 24.4 months, and the maximum observation time 76.0 months. The peri-implant bone level of the implants was evaluated, while considering the diameter, time of implant placement, time of loading, extent of augmentation, and localization of the implants. The data were evaluated after restructuring using a mixed model analysis. Results No significant difference was found between the use of RDIs or SDIs in the analyzed indications. Furthermore, no significant difference was found for the implant placement time, loading time, or the use of two-stage augmentations regarding the stability of the peri-implant bone level. Conclusions Reduced-diameter implants are a sufficient treatment option in horizontally deficient bone conditions. The use of RDIs in the posterior region shows promising results; 3.5-mm- diameter implants may be indicated considering the individual patient situation. The use of a mixed model analysis for the evaluation of heterogeneous practice data can lead to a significant increa…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11607/jomi.10574

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Henn, P., Gehrke, P., Happe, A., & Neugebauer, J.
Venue
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Published
2024-11
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
1-21
ISSN
0882-2786 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403970055
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
0.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
peri-implant marginal bone level, mixed model analysis, implant loading time
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Dental Implants, Alveolar Bone Loss, Dental Prosthesis Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review