Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30836588›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Titanium Dental Implant Micro-Morphology.

Gaetano Marenzi, Filomena Impero, Fabio Scherillo, Josè Camilla Sammartino, Antonino Squillace, Gianrico Spagnuolo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Bioactive Dental Materials: The Current Status.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Gaetano MarenziDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. gaetano.marenzi@gmail.com.
Filomena ImperoDepartment of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering, University of Naples "Federico II", P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy. filomena.impero@unina.it.
Fabio ScherilloDepartment of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering, University of Naples "Federico II", P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy. fabio.scherillo@unina.it.ORCID 0000-0002-2302-8968
Josè Camilla SammartinoDepartment of Biology and Biotechnology "L. Spallanzani", University of Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy. jose.sammartino@iusspavia.it.
Antonino SquillaceDepartment of Chemical, Materials and Industrial Production Engineering, University of Naples "Federico II", P.le Tecchio 80, 80125 Napoli, Italy. squillac@unina.it.ORCID 0000-0003-2931-1497
Gianrico SpagnuoloDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II", Via Pansini 5, 80131 Naples, Italy. gianrico.spagnuolo@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTitanium dental implants are today widely used with osseointegration mainly dependently on the implant surface properties. Different processing routes lead to different surface characteristics resulting, of course, in different in situ behaviors of the implants. MATERIALS: The effect of different treatments, whether mechanical or chemical, on the surface morphology of titanium implants were investigated. To this aim, various experimental methods, including roughness analysis as well scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations, were applied.

resultsThe results showed that, in contrast to the mechanical treatments, the chemical ones gave rise to a more irregular surface. SEM observations suggested that where commercial pure titanium was used, the chemical treatments provided implant surfaces without contaminations. In contrast, sandblasted implants could cause potential risks of surface contamination because of the presence of blasting particles remnants.

conclusionsThe examined implant surfaces showed different roughness levels in relation to the superficial treatment applied. The acid-etched surfaces were characterized by the presence of deeper valleys and higher peaks than the sandblasted surfaces. For this reason, acid-etched surfaces can be more easily damaged by the stress produced by the peri-implant bone during surgical implant placement.

Indexed as

dental implantsurface morphologyTi6Al4Vtitaniumtreatments

Identifiers

PMID30836588
PMCPMC6427554

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.