ArticlePloS one2022
Comparison of three-dimensional digital analyses and two-dimensional histomorphometric analyses of the bone-implant interface.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- RANKL, OPG, and CTS-K Release in Bone Response to Immediate Nonfunctional Loading of a Single Implant in Mandibular Molar Sites During Osseointegration Establishment.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Bone regenerative efficacy of binder-jet fabricated hydroxyapatite granules with and without biomimetic octacalcium phosphate-coated modification in a rat critical-sized calvarial defect model.Regenerative biomaterials · 2026Article
- Early Osseointegration in a Sheep Tibia Model: Correlating Digital Periapical Radiograph Gray-Level and RGB-Derived Metrics with Histologic Tissue Composition.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Bone Loss in Diabetes Mellitus: Diaporosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Titanium micro-nano textured surface with strontium incorporation improves osseointegration: an in vivo and in vitro study.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2024Article
- Comparison of osteogenesis and osseointegration following implant placement with simultaneous maxillary sinus augmentation using particulate and collagenated block types of deproteinized porcine bone mineral: a radiographic and histomorphometric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Comparison between bone-implant interfaces of microtopographically modified zirconia and titanium implants.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effect of Splinting on Orthodontic Mini-Implant Tipping and Bone Histomorphometric Parameters: An In Vivo Animal Model Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Histological analysis is considered to be the gold standard method of evaluating osseointegration around a bone-implant. However, this method requires invasive specimen preparation and is capable of representing only one plane. By comparison, micro-computed tomography (μCT) is a fast and convenient method that offers three-dimensional information but is hampered by problems related to resolution and artifacts, making it a supplementary method for osseointegration analysis. To verify the reliability of μCT for osseointegration evaluation, this animal model study compared bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratios obtained by the gold standard histomorphometric method with those obtained by the μCT method, using a rabbit tibia implant model. A sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) implant and a machined surface implant were inserted into each tibia of two rabbits (giving eight implants in total). Bone-implant specimens were analyzed using μCT with a spiral scan technique (SkyScan 1275) and histological sections were prepared thereafter. Three-dimensional (3D) reconstructed μCT data and four two-dimensional (2D) μCT sections, including one section corresponding to the histologic section and three additional sections rotated 45°, 90°, and 135°, were used to calculate the BIC ratio. The Pearson's test was used for correlation analysis at a significance level of 0.05. The histomorphometric BIC and the 2D-μCT BIC showed strong correlation (r = 0.762, P = 0.046), whereas the histomorphometric BIC and 3D-μCT BIC did not (r = -0.375, P = 0.385). However, the mean BIC value of three or four 2D-μCT sections showed a strong correlation with the 3D-μCT BIC (three sections: r = 0.781, P = 0.038; four sections: r = 0.804, P = 0.029). The results of this animal model study indicate that μCT can be used to complement the histomorphometric method in bone-implant interface analyses. With the limitations of this study, 3D-μCT analysis may even have a superior aspect in that it eliminates random variables that arise as a consequence of the selected cutting direction.
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.