ArticlePolymers2023
Behaviour of the Peri-Implant Soft Tissue with Different Rehabilitation Materials on Implants.
Article in Polymers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- hADMSC-YTZP seeding improves peri-implant bone repair through increased expression of BMP-2, ALP, and OPG.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Health of peri-implant soft tissues adjacent to glazed or polished monolithic zirconia: a randomized clinical trial.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Exploring the Properties and Indications of Chairside CAD/CAM Materials in Restorative Dentistry.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
- Biological Response of the Peri-Implant Mucosa to Different Definitive Implant Rehabilitation Materials.Polymers · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Mucointegration seems to gain interest when talking about success in the maintenance of dental implants. As we well know, collagen fibres cannot be inserted due to the lack of root structure on the implant surface, so the structural integration of peri-implant tissues that provide a firm seal around implants seems to be of interest when it comes to ensuring the survival of dental implants. To achieve a good epithelial barrier, the physicochemical characteristics of the surfaces of the restorative materials are of vital importance; therefore, the objective of this study is to analyse the histological behaviour of the peri-implant soft tissues in three different restorative materials. (2) Methods: Histological analysis of biopsied peri-implant keratinised mucosa, inflammatory epithelium and connective tissue in contact with a reinforced composite (BRILLIANT Crios), a cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate (TELIO CAD), and a hybrid ceramic (Vita Enamic), restored on a customised Atlantis-type abutment (Dentsply Sirona) between 60 and 180 days after restoration. (3) Results: A greater number of cells per mm2 of keratinised epithelium is observed in the reinforced composite, which could indicate greater surface roughness with greater inflammatory response. In this way, the greater number of lymphocytes and the lateral cellular composition of the inflammatory cells confirm the greater inflammatory activity towards that material. The best material to rehabilitate was hybrid ceramic, as it shows a better cellular response. (4) Conclusions: Knowing the limitations of the proposed study, despite the fact that greater inflammation is observed in the reinforced composite relative to the other materials studied, no statistically significant differences were found.
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.