Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32610687›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020

Bioactive Surfaces vs. Conventional Surfaces in Titanium Dental Implants: A Comparative Systematic Review.

Nansi López-Valverde, Javier Flores-Fraile, Juan Manuel Ramírez, Bruno Macedo de Sousa, Silvia Herrero-Hernández, Antonio López-Valverde

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

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Biomimetic Coatings in Implant Dentistry: A Quick Update.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Employing Indirect Adenosine 2Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Nansi López-ValverdeDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4168-3085
Javier Flores-FraileDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1338-0551
Juan Manuel RamírezDepartment of Morphological Sciences, University of Cordoba, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, 14071 Cordoba, Spain.
Bruno Macedo de SousaInstitute for Occlusion and Orofacial Pain Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra, Polo I - Edifício Central Rua Larga 3004-504 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-7833-4607
Silvia Herrero-HernándezDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain.
Antonio López-ValverdeDepartment of Surgery, University of Salamanca, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Salamanca (IBSAL), 37007 Salamanca, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4784-1870
Universidad de Salamanca · ESUniversity of Coimbra · PTUniversity of Córdoba · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal studies and the scarce clinical trials available that have been conducted suggest that bioactive surfaces on dental implants could improve the osseointegration of such implants. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of osseointegration of titanium (Ti) dental implants using bioactive surfaces with that of Ti implants using conventional surfaces such as sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) or similar surfaces. Applying the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, the MEDLINE, PubMed Central and Web of Science databases were searched for scientific articles in April 2020. The keywords used were "dental implants", "bioactive surfaces", "biofunctionalized surfaces", and "osseointegration", according to the question: "Do bioactive dental implant surfaces have greater osseointegration capacity compared with conventional implant surfaces?" Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. 128 studies were identified, of which only 30 met the inclusion criteria: 3 clinical trials and 27 animal studies. The average STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology) and ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) scores were 15.13 ± 2.08 and 17.7±1.4, respectively. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) was reported in 3 studies; removal torque test (RTT)-in 1 study; intraoral periapical X-ray and microcomputed tomography radiological evaluation (RE)-in 4 studies; shear force (SF)-in 1 study; bone-to-implant contact (BIC)-in 12 studies; and BIC and bone area (BA) jointly-in 5 studies. All animal studies reported better bone-to-implant contact surface for bioactive surfaces as compared to control implants with a statistical significance of

Indexed as

bioactive surfacesbiofunctionalized surfacesosseointegrationTi dental implants

Identifiers

PMID32610687
PMCPMC7408888
OpenAlexW3038888959

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.