Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36131319›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2022

Bone defect development in experimental canine peri-implantitis models: a systematic review.

A Solderer, M de Boer, D B Wiedemeier, M Solderer, C C Liu, P R Schmidlin

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Peri-implant bone regeneration in pigs.International journal of implant dentistry · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

A Solderer *Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology and Peri-implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. alex.solderer@zzm.uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0002-8161-4738
M de Boer *Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology and Peri-implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
D B WiedemeierStatistical Services, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
M SoldererPrivate Practice, 39100, Bolzano, Italy.
C C LiuClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology and Peri-implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
P R SchmidlinClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Division of Periodontology and Peri-implant Diseases, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zurich · CHFree University of Bozen-Bolzano · ITOspedale di Bolzano · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo provide a systematic overview of preclinical research regarding bone defect formation around different implant surfaces after ligature-induced peri-implantitis models in dogs. Two focused questions were formulated: 'How much bone loss can be expected after a certain time of ligature induced peri-implantitis?' and 'Do different implant types, dog breeds and study protocols differ in their extent of bone loss?' MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted on four databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE and Scopus). Observations, which consisted of bone defects measured directly after ligature removal in canine models, were included and analysed. Two approaches were used to analyse the relatively heterogeneous studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. First, separate simple linear regressions were calculated for each study and implant surface, for which observations were available across multiple time points. Second, a linear mixed model was specified for the observations at 12 weeks after ligature initiation, and assessing the potential influencing factors on defect depth was explored using lasso regularisation.

resultsThirty-six studies with a total of 1082 implants were included after. Bone loss was determined at different time points, either with clinical measurements radiographically or histologically. Different implant groups [e.g. turned, sand-blasted-acid-etched (SLA), titanium-plasma-sprayed (TPS) and other rough surfaces] were assessed and described in the studies. A mean incremental defect depth increase of 0.08 mm (SD: -0.01-0.28 mm) per week was observed. After 12 weeks, the defect depths ranged between 0.7 and 5 mm. Based on the current data set, implant surface could not be statistically identified as an essential factor in defect depth after 12 weeks of ligature-induced peri-implantitis.

conclusionExpectable defect depth after a specific time of ligature-induced peri-implantitis can vary robustly. It is currently impossible to delineate apparent differences in bone loss around different implant surfaces.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisAnimalsDogsSandTitaniumDental ImplantsSandTitaniumBone defectsDental implantDogsLigaturePeri-implantitisReview

Identifiers

PMID36131319
PMCPMC9494778
OpenAlexW4296793397

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.