2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.11.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Implant stability in posterior maxilla: bone-condensing versus bone-drilling: a clinical study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
44
0
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
44
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In this case, after ranking the studies, the one with the highest score [50] was included in the systematic review, the other [55] was excluded. A priori calculation for the sample size was undertaken in only two studies [49, 53].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this case, after ranking the studies, the one with the highest score [50] was included in the systematic review, the other [55] was excluded. A priori calculation for the sample size was undertaken in only two studies [49, 53].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[11][12][13][14][15] In these clinical conditions, the adoption of dental osteotomes to perform the implant site preparation is highly recommended. [16][17][18][19][20] The less the bone resistance, the more indication there is for consideration of the use of the osteotomes to compact the bone. 16 It has been demonstrated that after bone condensing, significantly higher implant stability was recorded immediately after surgery and during the whole observation period of 6 weeks compared with bone-drilling technique.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[49][50][51][52][53] Since there are few studies addressing the topic, relevant excluded clinical studies are summarized in Table 2. 22,28,29,36,41 These studies indicate a high predictability of implants placed in the tuberosity region; the survival rate was 100%.…”
Section: General Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%