ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Histomorphometric analysis of implant osseointegration using hydrophilic implants in diabetic rats.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of different thread configurations on hydrophilic implant stability. A split-mouth RCT.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Trial
- The Influence of Non-Thermal Plasma Treatment on Osseointegration of Endosteal Implants Presenting Decompressing Vertical Chambers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multiscale Interface Engineering for Orthopedic and Dental Implants: A Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Development and Evaluation of an Automated Histomorphometric Analysis Method for the Assessment of Implant Osseointegration.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of hydrophilic surface osseointegration in low-density bone: Preclinical study in rabbits.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate peri-implant bone formation of titanium implants using an in vivo rat model with and without uncontrolled diabetes mellitus (DM) to evaluate osseointegration of hydrophobic (Neoporos®) and hydrophilic (Acqua®) surfaces. MATERIALS AND
methods54 rats were divided into two groups: DM group (DMG) (streptozotocin-induced diabetes) and a control group (CG). Implants with hydrophobic (Neoporos®) and hydrophilic surfaces (Acqua®) were placed in the left or right tibia of animals. Animals were further divided into three groups (n = 9) euthanized after 7, 14, or 28 days. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO) were assessed in total, cortical, and medullary areas.
resultsThe DMG group, after a 7-day healing period, yielded with the Acqua implants presented significantly higher total BIC (+37.9%; p=0.03) and trabecular BIC (%) (+46.3%; p=0.02) values in comparison to the Neoporos implants. After 28 days of healing, the CG yielded that the cortical BAFO of Acqua implants to be significantly, 14%, higher (p=0.04) than Neoporos implants.
conclusionThe positive effects of the Acqua surface were able to counteract the adverse impact of uncontrolled DM at early osseointegration periods. After 28 days in vivo, the metabolic systemic impairment caused by DM overcame the surface treatment effect, leading to impaired osseointegration in both hydrophilic and hydrophobic implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The adverse effects of diabetes mellitus with respect to bone healing may be minimized by deploying implants with strategically modified surfaces. This study evaluated the effects of implants with Acqua® and Neoporos® surfaces in both diabetic and healthy animals. During the initial healing period in diabetic animals, the hydrophilic surface was demonstrated to have beneficial effect on osseointegration in comparison to the hydrophobic surface. The results provide an insight into early healing, but the authors suggest that a future short-term and long-term clinical study is needed to assess the possible benefit of the Acqua® implant as well as in increasing the predictability of implant osseointegration.
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.