Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33502059›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2021

Surface characteristics on commercial dental implants differentially activate macrophages in vitro and in vivo.

Jefferson O Abaricia, Arth H Shah, Marissa N Ruzga, Rene Olivares-Navarrete

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. CD4Acta biomaterialia · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jefferson O AbariciaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Arth H ShahDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.
Marissa N RuzgaDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Rene Olivares-NavarreteDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, College of Engineering, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1232-9164
Virginia Commonwealth University · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Virus Vector Shared ResourceP30CA016059 · NCI · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI Kim Felder Rhoads · 1985 to 2026
$51.0M
Role of Wnt Signaling in Macrophage Response to BiomaterialsR01DE028919 · NIDCR · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI OLIVARES-NAVARRETE, RENE · 2019 to 2023
$1.8M
Regulation of Fracture Healing by Macrophage-Derived Wnt LigandsF30AR076221 · NIAMS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI ABARICIA, JEFFERSON OVERLIN · 2019 to 2023
$187k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016059NIAMS NIH HHS F30 AR076221NIDCR NIH HHS R01 DE028919NIH HHS R01DE028919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesBiomaterial implantation provokes an inflammatory response that controls integrative fate. M2 macrophages regulate the response to implants by resolving the inflammatory phase and recruiting progenitor cells to aid healing. We have previously shown that modified titanium (Ti) disks directly induce M2 macrophage polarization. The aim of this study was to examine macrophage response to commercially available Ti or Ti alloy implants with comparable roughness and varying hydrophilicity. MATERIAL AND

methodsEleven commercially available Ti (A-F) or Ti alloy (G-K) dental implants were examined in this study. Surface topography, chemistry, and hydrophilicity were characterized for each implant. To compare the immune response in vitro, human monocyte-derived macrophages were seeded on implants and secreted pro- and anti-inflammatory proteins measured. To evaluate the inflammatory response in vivo, mice were subcutaneously instrumented with clinical implants, and implant adherent macrophage populations were characterized by flow cytometry.

resultsMacrophages on hydrophobic Implant C produced the highest level of pro-inflammatory proteins in vitro. In contrast, hydrophilic Implant E produced the second-highest pro-inflammatory response. Implants F and K, both hydrophilics, produced the highest anti-inflammatory protein secretions. Likewise, pro-inflammatory CD80hi macrophages predominated in vivo on implants C and E, and M2 CD206 + macrophages predominated on implants F and K.

conclusionsThese findings show that hydrophilicity alone is insufficient to predict the anti-inflammatory effect on macrophage polarization and that other properties-surface composition or topography-determine immune modulation. This in vivo model may be a useful screening method to compare the immunomodulatory response to clinical implants of disparate geometry or size.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsAnimalsMacrophage ActivationMacrophagesMiceSurface PropertiesTitaniumDental ImplantsTitaniumhydrophilicityinflammationmacrophagessurface chemistry

Identifiers

PMID33502059
PMCPMC8207525
OpenAlexW3123356852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.