ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2018
Nanoscale Topographical Characterization of Orbital Implant Materials.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- A spatiotemporally programmed bioactive scaffold for orbital reconstruction.Bioactive materials · 2027Article
- In Vitro Studies Regarding the Effect of Cellulose Acetate-Based Composite Coatings on the Functional Properties of the Biodegradable Mg3Nd Alloys.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- [Embedded 3D printing of porous silicon orbital implants and its surface modification].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2023Article
- An Orbital Mystery: A Unique Case of an Obsolete Orbital Implant With a Review of Orbital Implant Materials.Cureus · 2022Article
- Article
- Naturally-Derived Biphasic Calcium Phosphates through Increased Phosphorus-Based Reagent Amounts for Biomedical Applications.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The search for an ideal orbital implant is still ongoing in the field of ocular biomaterials. Major limitations of currently-available porous implants include the high cost along with a non-negligible risk of exposure and postoperative infection due to conjunctival abrasion. In the effort to develop better alternatives to the existing devices, two types of new glass-ceramic porous implants were fabricated by sponge replication, which is a relatively inexpensive method. Then, they were characterized by direct three-dimensional (3D) contact probe mapping in real space by means of atomic force microscopy in order to assess their surface micro- and nano-features, which were quantitatively compared to those of the most commonly-used orbital implants. These silicate glass-ceramic materials exhibit a surface roughness in the range of a few hundred nanometers (S
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.