Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34829765›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2021

Pre-Clinical Models in Implant Dentistry: Past, Present, Future.

Nicolas Blanc-Sylvestre, Philippe Bouchard, Catherine Chaussain, Claire Bardet

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Pathophysiology of Status Epilepticus Revisited.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. BiomimeticInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicolas Blanc-SylvestreUniversité de Paris, Institut des Maladies Musculo-Squelettiques, Orofacial Pathologies, Imaging and Biotherapies Laboratory URP2496 and FHU-DDS-Net, Dental School, and Plateforme d'Imagerie du Vivant (PIV), 92120 Montrouge, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0559-1837
Philippe BouchardUniversité de Paris, Institut des Maladies Musculo-Squelettiques, Orofacial Pathologies, Imaging and Biotherapies Laboratory URP2496 and FHU-DDS-Net, Dental School, and Plateforme d'Imagerie du Vivant (PIV), 92120 Montrouge, France.
Catherine ChaussainUniversité de Paris, Institut des Maladies Musculo-Squelettiques, Orofacial Pathologies, Imaging and Biotherapies Laboratory URP2496 and FHU-DDS-Net, Dental School, and Plateforme d'Imagerie du Vivant (PIV), 92120 Montrouge, France.
Claire BardetUniversité de Paris, Institut des Maladies Musculo-Squelettiques, Orofacial Pathologies, Imaging and Biotherapies Laboratory URP2496 and FHU-DDS-Net, Dental School, and Plateforme d'Imagerie du Vivant (PIV), 92120 Montrouge, France.
Université Paris Cité · FR

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche 18-CE14-0018-01Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale DGE20111123012Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale FDM201906008500
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomedical research seeks to generate experimental results for translation to clinical settings. In order to improve the transition from bench to bedside, researchers must draw justifiable conclusions based on data from an appropriate model. Animal testing, as a prerequisite to human clinical exposure, is performed in a range of species, from laboratory mice to larger animals (such as dogs or non-human primates). Minipigs appear to be the animal of choice for studying bone surgery around intraoral dental implants. Dog models, well-known in the field of dental implant research, tend now to be used for studies conducted under compromised oral conditions (biofilm). Regarding small animal models, research studies mostly use rodents, with interest in rabbit models declining. Mouse models remain a reference for genetic studies. On the other hand, over the last decade, scientific advances and government guidelines have led to the replacement, reduction, and refinement of the use of all animal models in dental implant research. In new development strategies, some in vivo experiments are being progressively replaced by in vitro or biomaterial approaches. In this review, we summarize the key information on the animal models currently available for dental implant research and highlight (i) the pros and cons of each type, (ii) new levels of decisional procedures regarding study objectives, and (iii) the outlook for animal research, discussing possible non-animal options.

Indexed as

biocompatibilityhuman-sized dental implantimplant modelsmurine dental implantosseointegrationpre-clinical research

Identifiers

PMID34829765
PMCPMC8615291
OpenAlexW3208886995

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.