Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35226690›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2022

The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marta Liliana Musskopf, Amanda Finger Stadler, Ulf Me Wikesjö, Cristiano Susin

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Marta Liliana MusskopfDivision of Comprehensive Oral Health-Periodontology, Laboratory for Applied Periodontal & Craniofacial Research, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6011-7839
Amanda Finger StadlerDivision of Comprehensive Oral Health-Periodontology, Laboratory for Applied Periodontal & Craniofacial Research, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
Ulf Me WikesjöDivision of Comprehensive Oral Health-Periodontology, Laboratory for Applied Periodontal & Craniofacial Research, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
Cristiano SusinDivision of Comprehensive Oral Health-Periodontology, Laboratory for Applied Periodontal & Craniofacial Research, Adams School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, United States of America.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal bone remodeling.

methodsA systematic review including PubMed and EMBASE databases through June 2021 was conducted. Two independent examiners screened titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles. Studies evaluating titanium dental implant osseointegration in native alveolar bone were included. A quality assessment of reporting was performed. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were produced for bone-implant contact (BIC), first BIC, and crestal bone level.

results125 out of 249 full-text articles were reviewed, 55 original studies were included. Quality of reporting was generally low, omissions included animal characteristics, examiner masking/calibration, and sample size calculation. The typical minipig model protocol included surgical extraction of the mandibular premolars and first molar, 12±4 wks post-extraction healing, placement of three narrow regular length dental implants per jaw quadrant, submerged implant healing and 8 wks of osseointegration. Approximately 90% of studies reported undecalcified incandescent light microscopy histometrics. Overall, mean BIC was 59.88% (95%CI: 57.43-62.33). BIC increased significantly over time (p<0.001): 40.93 (95%CI: 34.95-46.90) at 2 wks, 58.37% (95%CI: 54.38-62.36) at 4 wks, and 66.33% (95%CI: 63.45-69.21) beyond 4 wks. Variability among studies was mainly explained by differences in observation interval post-extraction and post-implant placement, and implant surface. Heterogeneity was high for all studies (I2 > 90%, p<0.001).

conclusionsThe minipig intraoral dental implant model appears to effectively demonstrate osseointegration and alveolar bone remodeling similar to that observed in humans and canine models.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsOsseointegrationSwine, MiniatureAnimalsBone RemodelingDental Implantation, EndosseousMandibleModels, AnimalSwineDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID35226690
PMCPMC8884544
OpenAlexW4214769990

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.