ArticleClinical oral investigations2019
Development of a quantitative preclinical screening model for implant osseointegration in rat tail vertebra.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- The parasitic worm product ES-62 protects the osteoimmunology axis in a mouse model of obesity-accelerated ageing.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFunctional tooth replacement and bone regeneration are parts of the daily practice in modern dentistry, but well-reproducible and relatively inexpensive experimental models are still missing. We aimed to develop a new small animal model to monitor osseointegration utilizing the combination of multiple evaluation protocols. MATERIAL AND
methodsAfter cutting the tail between the C4 and C5 vertebrae in Wistar rats, costume made, parallel walled, non-threaded implants were placed into the center of the tail parallel with its longitudinal axis using a surgical guide. Osseointegration of the titanium implants was followed between 4 and 16 weeks after surgery applying axial extraction force, and resonance frequency analysis as functional tests, and histomorphometry and micro-CT as structural evaluations.
resultsIn functional tests, we observed that both methods are suitable for the detection of the time-dependent increase in osseointegration, but the sensitivity of the pull-out technique (an approximately five times increase with rather low standard error) was much higher than that of the resonance frequency analysis. In structural evaluations, changes in the detected bone implant contact values measured by histomorphometry (yielding 1.5 times increase, with low variations of data) were more reliable than micro-CT based evaluations to screen the developments of contact between bone and implant.
conclusionOur results provide evidence that the caudal vertebrae osseointegration model is useful for the preclinical evaluation of implant integration into the bone. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The combination of the biomechanical and structural tests offers a well-reproducible small animal system that can be suitable for studying the integration of various implant materials and surface treatments.
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.