Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31151256›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Sandblasted and Acid Etched Titanium Dental Implant Surfaces Systematic Review and Confocal Microscopy Evaluation.

Gabriele Cervino, Luca Fiorillo, Gaetano Iannello, Dario Santonocito, Giacomo Risitano, Marco Cicciù

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

Review 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 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Gabriele CervinoDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. gcervino@unime.it.ORCID 0000-0003-4619-4691
Luca FiorilloDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. lfiorillo@unime.it.ORCID 0000-0003-0335-4165
Gaetano IannelloDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. gaet.doc@gmail.com.
Dario SantonocitoDepartment of Engineering, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. dsantonocito@unime.it.ORCID 0000-0002-9709-9638
Giacomo RisitanoDepartment of Engineering, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. grisitano@unime.it.ORCID 0000-0002-0506-8720
Marco CicciùDepartment of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphological and Functional Imaging, Messina University, 98122 Messina ME, Italy. acromarco@yahoo.it.ORCID 0000-0003-2311-9728
University of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The field of dental implantology has made progress in recent years, allowing safer and predictable oral rehabilitations. Surely the rehabilitation times have also been reduced, thanks to the advent of the new implant surfaces, which favour the osseointegration phases and allow the clinician to rehabilitate their patients earlier. To carry out this study, a search was conducted in the Pubmed, Embase and Elsevier databases; the articles initially obtained according to the keywords used numbered 283, and then subsequently reduced to 10 once the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The review that has been carried out on this type of surface allows us to fully understand the features and above all to evaluate all the advantages or not related. The study materials also are supported by a manufacturing company, which provided all the indications regarding surface treatment and confocal microscopy scans. In conclusion, we can say that, thanks to these new surfaces, it has been possible to shorten the time necessary to obtain osseointegration and, therefore, secondary stability on the part of implants. The surfaces, therefore, guarantee an improved cellular adhesion and thanks to the excellent wettability all the biological processes that derive from it, such as increases in the exposed implant surface, resulting in an increase in bone-implant contact (BIC).

Indexed as

bone-implant interfacedental implantsosseointegrationsurface properties

Identifiers

PMID31151256
PMCPMC6600780
OpenAlexW2946932535

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.