ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Chemical Evaluation of Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy Analysis of Different Failing Dental Implant Surfaces: A Comparative Clinical Trial.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Severity, Pre- and Post-Explantation Cytokine Profile and SEM/EDX-Defined Corrosion-Related Findings in Advanced Peri-Implantitis: Preliminary Results from the PERI-EDU Prospective Exploratory Clinical Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Distribution and Chemical Nature of AlBioMed research international · 2026Article
- Enhancement of titanium surfaces using different acid solutions at room temperature to improve bone cell responses.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Electron microscopic analysis of necrotic bone and failed implant surface in a patient with medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw.Maxillofacial plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to compare two different implant surface chemistries of failing dental implants. Sixteen patients (mean age: 52 ± 8.27 with eight females and eight males) and 34 implants were included in the study. Group-I implants consisted of a blasted/etched surface with a final process surface, while Group-II implants consisted of the sandblasted acid etching (SLA) method. The chemical surface analysis was performed by the energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) method from coronal, middle, and apical parts of each implant. Titanium (Ti) element values were found to be 20.22 ± 15.7 at.% in Group I and 33.96 ± 13.62 at.% in Group-II in the middle of the dental implants. Aluminum (Al) element values were found to be 0.01 ± 0.002 in Group-I and 0.17 ± 0.28 at.% in Group II in the middle of the dental implants, and statistically significant differences were found between the groups for the Al and Ti elements in the middle of the dental implants (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.