ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Impact of a Static Magnetic Field on Early Osseointegration: A Pilot Study in Canines.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biophysical stimuli for promoting bone repair and regeneration.Medical review (2021) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A static magnetic field generated by neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnets placed in the inner cavity of dental implants can enhance bone regeneration in rabbits. It is, however, unknown whether static magnetic fields support osseointegration in a canine model. We therefore determined the potential osteogenic effect of implants carrying NdFeB magnets inserted in the tibia of six adult canines in the early stages of osseointegration. Here, we report that after 15 days of healing, magnetic and regular implants showed a high variation with a median new bone-to-implant contact (nBIC) in the cortical (41.3% and 7.3%) and the medullary (28.6% and 44.8%) region, respectively. Consistently, the median new bone volume/tissue volume (nBV/TV) in the cortical (14.9% and 5.4%) and the medullary (22.2% and 22.4%) region were not significantly different. One week of healing only resulted in negligible bone formation. These findings suggest that considering the large variation and the pilot nature of this study, magnetic implants failed to support peri-implant bone formation in a canine model.
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.