ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Assessing bone formation on hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in a murine model treated with bisphosphonates.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrophilic versus hydrophobic implant coatings: A comparative osseointegration study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Preliminary Assessment of a Hybrid Implant Design Submitted to Immediate Placement with Abutment Exposure: A Pilot Study in One Dog Model.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Different Methods to Modify the Hydrophilicity of Titanium Implants with Biomimetic Surface Topography to Induce Variable Responses in Bone Marrow Stromal Cells.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Analysis of peri-implant bone tissue between hydrophilic and rough implant surfaces in spontaneously hypertensive rats treated with losartan.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the osseointegration of implants with hydrophobic (HFB) and hydrophilic (HFL) surfaces in a murine model of high-dose bisphosphonates (BPs). MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-four rats were randomly allocated into four groups: control group with HFB implants (CG-HFB), control group with HFL implants (CG-HFL), BP group with HFB implants (BP-HFB), and BP group with HFL implants (BP-HFL). Animals were euthanized after 15 and 45 days (n=8). The dependent variables assessed were the removal torque (biomechanical analysis), the bone volume around the implants (%BV/TV) (microtomographic analysis), the bone-implant contact (%BIC), the bone between the threads (%BBT) (histomorphometric analysis), and the expression of bone metabolism markers (immunohistochemistry analysis).
resultsThe CG-HFL and BP-HFL groups presented higher removal torque than the CG-HFB and BP-HFB implants. The %BIC of the CG-HFL surfaces was slightly higher than that of the CG-HFB implants. The BP-HFB and BP-HFL groups presented a higher %BIC than that of the CG-HFB and CG-HFL groups (p<0.001). BP therapy also increased the %BBT at both implant surfaces. Higher levels of ALP were observed in the matrix region of bone tissue on the HFL surfaces than on the HFB surfaces.
conclusionBoth surfaces enable osseointegration in rats under BP therapy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The study demonstrates that hydrophobic (HFB) and hydrophilic (HFL) implant surfaces can promote osseointegration in rats undergoing bisphosphonate therapy. The HFL surfaces exhibited improved biomechanical performance, higher bone-implant contact, and increased bone volume, suggesting their potential clinical relevance for implant success in individuals on bisphosphonate treatment.
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.