Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34226607›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

The osseointegration and stability of dental implants with different surface treatments in animal models: a network meta-analysis.

Chun-Ping Hao, Nan-Jue Cao, Yu-He Zhu, Wei Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Chun-Ping Hao *Liaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Nan-Jue Cao *The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China.
Yu-He ZhuLiaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
Wei WangLiaoning Provincial Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, School and Hospital of Stomatology, China Medical University, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China. wwang75@cmu.edu.cn.
China Medical University · CNZhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dental implants are commonly used to repair missing teeth. The implant surface plays a critical role in promoting osseointegration and implant success. However, little information is available about which implant surface treatment technology best promotes osseointegration and implant stability. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to evaluate the osseointegration and stability of four commonly used dental implants (SLA, SLActive, TiUnite, and Osseotite). The protocol of the current meta-analysis is registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) under the code CRD42020190907 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk ). We conducted a systematic review following PRISMA and Cochrane Recommendations. Medline (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Embase, and the Web of Science databases were searched. Only randomized controlled trials were considered. Twelve studies were included in the current network meta-analysis, eleven studies were included concerning the osseointegration effect and five studies were included for stability analysis (four studies were used to assess both stability and osseointegration). Rank possibility shows that the SLActive surface best promoted bone formation at an early healing stage and TiUnite seemed to be the best surface for overall osseointegration. For stability, TiUnite seemed to be the best surface. The present network meta-analysis showed that the SLActive surface has the potential to promote osseointegration at an early stage. The TiUnite surface had the best effect on osseointegration regarding the overall healing period. The TiUnite surface also had the best effect in stability.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsAnimalsBone and BonesBone DensityBone DevelopmentHumansOsseointegrationSurface PropertiesTitaniumTorqueDental ImplantsTitanium

Identifiers

PMID34226607
PMCPMC8257659
OpenAlexW3181524015

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.