Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32429405›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Histological and Histomorphometrical Evaluation of a New Implant Macrogeometry. A Sheep Study.

Sergio Alexandre Gehrke, Margherita Tumedei, Jaime Aramburú Júnior, Tiago Luis Eirles Treichel, Roni Kolerman, Stefania Lepore, Adriano Piattelli, Giovanna Iezzi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 5 countries.

Sergio Alexandre GehrkeDepartment of Research, Biotecnos, Cuareim 1483, Montevideo CP 11100, Uruguay.ORCID 0000-0002-5863-9101
Margherita TumedeiDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8770-5297
Jaime Aramburú JúniorDepartment of Research, Biotecnos, Cuareim 1483, Montevideo CP 11100, Uruguay.ORCID 0000-0002-0519-0099
Tiago Luis Eirles TreichelDepartment of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Veterinary, University of Rio Verde, Rio Verde 75900-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0192-055X
Roni KolermanDepartment of Periodontology and Dental Implantology, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel.
Stefania LeporeDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Adriano PiattelliDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Giovanna IezziDepartment of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
University of Chieti-Pescara · ITCentro Uruguayo de Imagenología Molecular · UYTel Aviv University · ILUniversidade de Rio Verde · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decompression or healing chambers between the threads have been proposed to improve and accelerate the osseointegration process of dental implants. The aim of the present work was to test, in an in vivo sheep study, if healing chambers between the threads could produce a better osseointegration process. Thirty titanium implants (15 conventional design (control) and 15 implants with healing chambers (test)) were inserted in a random fashion in the tibia of 3 sheep. The animals were euthanized after 30 days of healing, and the retrieved specimens treated to obtain thin ground sections. Histological observations showed that the quantity of newly formed bone growing in an apical direction was lower in the control group (1095 µm) when compared to the Test group (1658 µm). This difference was statistically significant. Moreover, a layer of osteogenic matrix was present around the portion of implants immersed in the marrow spaces. This osteogenic tissue was thicker in the test group. In conclusion, the present study confirmed the very good results in implants with healing chambers that presented a higher percentage of new bone formation.

Indexed as

OsseointegrationTibiaAnimalsBone-Implant InterfaceBone MarrowOsteogenesisSheepSurface PropertiesTitaniumTitaniumdental implantshealing chamberosseointegrationosteogenic matrix

Identifiers

PMID32429405
PMCPMC7277453
OpenAlexW3025349165

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.