ArticleDental research journal2023
Micro-computed tomography analysis of mineral attachment to the implants augmented by three types of bone grafts: An experimental study in dogs.
Article in Dental research journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compared the effect of various grafting materials on the area and volume of minerals attached to dental implants. Materials and Methods: In this animal study, 13 dogs were divided into three groups according to the time of sacrificing (2 months, 4 months, or 6 months). The implants were placed in oversized osteotomies, and the residual defects were filled with autograft, bovine bone graft (Cerabone), or a synthetic substitute (Osteon II). At the designated intervals, the dogs were sacrificed and the segmented implants underwent micro-computed tomography analysis. The bone-implant area (BIA) and bone-implant volume (BIV) of bone and graft material were calculated in the region of interest around the implant. The data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at Results: There was no significant difference in BIA and BIV between the healing intervals for any of the grafting materials ( Conclusion: All graft materials showed comparable performance in providing mineral support for implants up to 4 months after surgery. At the long-term (6-month) interval, autogenous bone demonstrated significant superiority over xenogenic and synthetic substitutes concerning the bone area and volume around the implant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38020252PMC10630541W4387109256What 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.