ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2016
Randomized controlled clinical trial of 2 types of hydroxyapatite-coated implants on moderate periodontitis patients.
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare and analyze the peri-implant tissue conditions and prospective clinical outcomes associated with 2 types of hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants: (1) fully HA-coated implants and (2) partially HA-coated implants with resorbable blast medium on the coronal portion of the threads.
methodsForty-four partially edentulous patients were randomly assigned to undergo the placement of 62 HA-coated implants, and were classified as the control group (partially HA-coated, n=30) and the test group (fully HA-coated, n=32). All patients had chronic periodontitis with moderate crestal bone loss around the edentulous area. The stability and clinical outcomes of the implants were evaluated using the primary and secondary implant stability quotient (ISQ), as well as radiographic, mobility, and peri-implant soft tissue assessments around the implants. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to evaluate differences between and within the 2 groups, with
resultsThe fully HA-coated implants displayed good retention of crestal bone, and insignificant differences were found in annual marginal bone loss between the 2 types of HA-coated implants (
conclusionsThe fully HA-coated implants did not lead to an increased risk of peri-implantitis and showed good retention of the crestal bone, as well as good survival and success rates. Our study suggests that fully HA-coated implants could become a reliable treatment alternative for edentulous posterior sites and are capable of providing good retention of the crestal bone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.