Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28787980›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2015

A Critical Review of Dental Implant Materials with an Emphasis on Titanium

Reham B Osman, Michael V Swain

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
43.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

129 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 554 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Reham B OsmanDepartment of Oral Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Centrum of Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands. rehambosman@gmail.com.
Michael V SwainBiomaterials Laboratory, Sydney Dental Hospital, the University of Sydney, Surry Hills, NSW 2010, Australia. michael.swain@sydney.edu.au.
Cairo University · EGUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of the current publication is to provide a comprehensive literature review on the topic of dental implant materials. The following paper focuses on conventional titanium implants and more recently introduced and increasingly popular zirconia implants. Major subtopics include the material science and the clinical considerations involving both implant materials and the influence of their physical properties on the treatment outcome. Titanium remains the gold standard for the fabrication of oral implants, even though sensitivity does occur, though its clinical relevance is not yet clear. Zirconia implants may prove to be promising in the future; however, further

Indexed as

dental implantsimplant materialsoral implantstitaniumzirconia

Identifiers

PMID28787980
PMCPMC5455450
OpenAlexW2042761234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.