ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Evaluation of hydrophilic surface osseointegration in low-density bone: Preclinical study in rabbits.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrophilic versus hydrophobic implant coatings: A comparative osseointegration study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Biomechanical behavior of two different surface treatments on dental implants with healing chambers in osteoporotic rabbits: an experimental study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the osseointegration of a hydrophilic surface (blasting + acid etching + immersion in isotonic solution) in comparison with that of a control surface (blasting + acid etching) using an experimental model of low-density bone. To perform the study, 24 rabbits were submitted to the installation of 4 implants in the iliac bone bilaterally: 2 implants with a control surface and 2 implants with a hydrophilic surface. The rabbits were euthanized at 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implant installation. After euthanasia, one implant from each surface was used to perform the removal torque analysis, and the other implant was used for the execution of non-decalcified histological sections and evaluation of the bone implant contact (% BIC) as well as the fraction of bone tissue area between the implant threads (% BBT). The implants with a hydrophilic surface presented higher %BIC (42.92 ± 2.85% vs. 29.49 ± 10.27%) and % BBT (34.32 ± 8.52% vs. 23.20 ± 6.75%) (p < 0.05) in the 2-week period. Furthermore, the hydrophilic surface presented higher removal torque in the 8-week period (76.13 ± 16.00 Ncm2 vs. 52.77 ± 13.49 Ncm2) (p<0.05). Implants with a hydrophilic surface exhibited acceleration in the process of osseointegration, culminating in greater secondary stability in low-density bone than in implants with a control surface.
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.