ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2021
Peri-Implant bone response around porous-surface dental implants: A preclinical meta-analysis.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Deep Neural Networks Based on Sp7 Protein Sequence Prediction in Peri-Implant Bone Formation.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Bone Regeneration and Polyetheretherketone Implants in Maxillo-Facial Surgery and Neurosurgery: A Multidisciplinary Study.Biology · 2024Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis MATERIAL AND
methodsAn electronic search of PubMed (MEDLINE) resulted in the selection of ten animal studies (out of 865 publications) for characterization and quality assessment. Risk of bias assessment indicated poor reporting for the majority of studies. The results for bone-implant contact (BIC%) and peri-implant bone formation (BF%) were extracted from the eligible studies and used for the meta-analysis. Data for porous-surface implants were compared to those for non-porous-surface implants, which were considered as the controls.
resultsThe random-effects meta-analysis showed that the use of porous-surface implants did not significantly increase overall BIC% (mean difference or MD: 3.63%; 95% confidence interval or 95% CI: -1.66 to 8.91; p = 0.18), whereas it significantly increased overall BF% (MD: 5.43%; CI: 2.20 to 8.67; p = 0.001), as compared to the controls.
conclusionPorous-surface implants promote osseointegration with increase in BF%. However, their use shows no significant effect on BIC%. Further preclinical and clinical investigations are required to find conclusive evidence on the effect of porous-surface 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.