ArticleInternational dental journal2023
Assessing Microleakage at 2 Different Implant-Healing Abutment Interfaces.
Article in International dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate implants from different manufacturers and determine whether implant-healing abutment interface has a significant impact on implant seal.
methodsAn air-injection pressure measurement test was performed on implants with either line-contact (modified TSIII [TSM] and Bone Level Tapered [BLT]) or partial face-contact (BlueDiamond [BD], SuperLine [SL], ISII, and UFII) interface design from 6 different manufacturers. Forty implants per implant type were analysed. Pressure data were evaluated with Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's post hoc analysis (statistical significance was set at P < .05).
resultsBLT implants leaked when the mean pressure was increased to 199.9 kPa. The following implants showed mean leakage pressures of 182.9 (TSM), 157.4 (BD), 112.9 (SL), 101.8 (ISII), and 30.6 (UFII). There was a significant difference between line-contact and partial face-contact implants (P < .001).
conclusionsThe implant interface design has a significant impact on implant microbial leakage. Implants with a line-contact interface exhibited a higher resistance to leakage than those with partial face-contact.
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.