Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32100121›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2020

Is maxillary diastema an appropriate site for implantation in rats?

Gang Yue, Husham Edani, Andrew Sullivan, Shuying Jiang, Hamed Kazerani, Mohammad Ali Saghiri

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. 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.

Gang YueDepartment of Periodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Husham EdaniDepartment of Periodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Andrew SullivanDepartment of Periodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Shuying JiangThe Office of Institutional Assessment, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, USA.
Hamed KazeraniDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Mohammad Ali SaghiriDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA. Mohammadalisaghiri@rutgers.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5064-7828
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImplantology or implant dentistry is growing fast during last four decades. Facing the growing demand of implant treatment, there are extreme challenges to clinicians and researchers. First is peri-implantitis with remarkable prevalence. Though investigators have revealed that the etiology of the peri-implant infection is similar to periodontitis, clinically there is no effective treatment. Second, implantation in patients with severe systemic conditions, i.e., severe diabetes, lupus, osteoporosis, organ transplant, and cancer with intensive radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, is another challenge to implant treatment for lack of scientific research data. Animal models are crucial to help investigators reveal the mechanisms underlying these disorders. Murine models are used most commonly. Rats are the better subject in dental implant research, due to mice could not provide clinical compatible and macro-level measurable data for implant osseointegration and peri-implantitis in oral cavity for lacking enough cancellous bone to support an implant more than 1 mm in length.

objectiveOur aim of this research is to find a clinical comparable rat dental implant model.

methodsSix male Sprague-Dawley rats with body weight more than 500 g were used in the experiment. Each rat received two implants. One implant was placed at maxillary diastema in each side. Seven weeks after the implantation, only one implant successfully osseointegrated without movement and inflammation. Implant success and failure rate is analyzed by using Clopper-Pearson's exact method at 95% confidence interval.

resultsThe present data indicate that the true success rate of implantation in maxillary natural diastema in rat is less than 38.4% at a confident level of 95%. Meanwhile, Micro-CT indicates maxillary first molar position will be a promising site for implantation.

conclusionMaxillary nature diastema may not be an appropriate site for implantation research for its low successful rate, but maxillary first molar position could be a candidate for implantation research. Further researches are required to illustrate the details.

Indexed as

DiastemaImplantMicro-CTRat

Identifiers

PMID32100121
PMCPMC7042428
OpenAlexW3011383432

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.