BMC Oral Health. 2026 Jun 5. doi: 10.1186/s12903-026-08802-9. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To clinically and radiographically compare two osseodensification techniques in terms of implant stability and osseointegration in a split-mouth design.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7 patients with an edentulous maxillary anterior area who need implant placement were divided into 2 groups. Group A included 7 implants and was prepared using the Densah Bur technique (DB-Group), while Group B included 7 implants and was prepared using the Magnetic Mallet technique (MM-Group). Surgery was performed, followed by clinical and radiographic follow-up to evaluate implant stability in both groups. A linear mixed model (LMM) statistical analysis was utilized to handle the clustering effect of the data.
RESULT: The mixed model revealed a stable data analysis owing to the significant intercept for all of the dependent variables (P < 0.001). Densah Burs technique demonstrated lower postoperative pain, faster wound healing, higher implant stability, and greater preservation of labial bone thickness, while both methods showed similar long-term bone density and crestal width outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Within the confines of this study, the rotary-based Densah Bur osseodensification technique was associated with higher implant stability and labial plate thickness, alongside comparable bone density. These findings suggest potentially more predictable osteotomy compaction and autografting in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone implant osteotomy preparation.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was retrospectively registered at pactr.samrc.ac.za [PACTR202412717492416-(2024-12-31)].
PMID:42249424 | DOI:10.1186/s12903-026-08802-9
