ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2022
Clinical Prospective Assessment of Genotoxic Effects of Dental Implants in Gingival Epithelial Cells.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Cytotoxic and Genotoxic Effect of Modern Dental MaterialsActa stomatologica Croatica · 2023Article
- Porphyromonas Gingivalis in Different Peri-Implant Conditions: a Pilot Cross - Sectional Study.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Although titanium-based implants are considered bioinert, it has been found that they are subject to corrosion and wear. This study aimed to evaluate the cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of two implant systems in gingival epithelial cells. Material and methods: Gingival swabs were taken three times from 91 subjects. The first swab was taken before dental implant placement, the second swab 90 days after dental implant placement and the third swab 21 days following the healing abutment placement. DNA damage was analyzed using the micronucleus test. Tested dental implants with corresponding healing abutments were Ankylos and Dentium SuperLine. Results: Of all scored forms of cytogenetic damage in gingival cells of individuals after implementation of tested dental implant systems, only an increase in the number of binucleated cells (P ≤ 0.001) was significant in contrast to control values for both tested implant systems, 90 days after dental implant placement and 21 days following the healing abutment placement. Conclusion: It may be concluded that there are no titanium-based implant dependent cytogenetic damage in gingival epithelial cells. A slight increase in cytogenetic damage has been observed but it is of no biological relevance and might be associated with healing abutment induced effect.
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.