ArticleAnnals of African medicine
An
Article in Annals of African medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Article
- Two Gingival Cell Lines Response to Different Dental Implant Abutment Materials: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Abutment surfaces are being designed to promote gingival soft tissue attachment and integration. This confirms implant survival for long term by forming a seal around the prosthetics. Objectives: This study was done to compare the biocompatibility of three implant abutments: titanium uncoated, Ti-nitride coated, and modified polyetheretherketone (PEEK) with human gingival keratinocytes. Materials and Methods: The titanium-uncoated, titanium-nitride-coated, and modified PEEK discs (13 mm × 3 mm) were fabricated and compared with uncoated polyester cell culture discs, which were used as controls. These three implant abutments were evaluated for biocompatibility with respect to human gingival keratinocytes for viability, morphology, proliferation, and migration by scanning electron microscopy imaging and scratch wound healing assays. Measurements of roughness show changes between the investigated surfaces. Results: Keratinocytes cultured on all examined surfaces indicated adhesion and attachment. An assay of cell viability showed no substantial variances among the groups. The modified PEEK surface showed greater cell proliferation and migration among the three abutment materials. Conclusion: All three abutment material surface types showed similar epithelial biological responses. However, modified PEEK material showed the highest biocompatibility.
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.