ArticleHeliyon2024
Fibroblasts and osteoblasts behavior after contact with different titanium surfaces used as implant abutment: An in vitro experimental study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of different oral barrier membranes on the efficacy and safety of guided bone regeneration in patients with dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Anodized Titanium Implant Abutments: Effects on Surface Properties, Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Esthetics, and Biological Outcomes-A Focused Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Scaffold Design: A Review of Material and Immune Modulation in Bone Tissue Engineering.Cell and tissue banking · 2026Review
- Health of peri-implant soft tissues adjacent to glazed or polished monolithic zirconia: a randomized clinical trial.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2025Article
- Promoting implant osseointegration via the osteoblast-selective β-amino acid polymer strategy.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Clinical and Esthetic Outcomes of Anodized Titanium Abutments: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2025Review
- The impact of anodization modification on titanium interaction with human osteoblasts and fibroblasts (in vitro study).PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
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
Background: The goal of this in vitro study was to compare three different surfaces: two types of implant surfaces commercially available ([a] smooth/machined and [b] acid-treated surface) Methods: Ninety-nine discs (5 × 2 mm) were manufactured in titanium grade IV and received different surface treatments: (i) Mach group: machined; (ii) AA group: double acid etch; and (iii) AN group: anodizing treatment. Three discs from each group were analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to obtain surface topography images and qualitatively analyzed by EDS. Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts and pre-osteoblastic cells (MC3T3-E1 lineage) were used to investigate each group's biological response (n = 10/cellular type). The data were compared statistically using the ANOVA one-way test, considered as a statistically significant difference p < 0.05. Results: The AA group had numerous micropores with diameters between 5 and 10 μm, while nanopores between 1 and 5 nm were measured in the AN group. The EDX spectrum showed a high titanium concentration in all the analyzed samples. The contact angle and wetting tension were higher in the AA, whereas similar results were observed for the other groups. A lower result was observed for base width in the AA, which was higher in the other two groups. The AN showed the best values in the fibroblast cells, followed by Mach and AA; whereas, in the culture of the MC3T3 cells, the result was precisely the opposite (AA > Mach > AN). There was similar behavior for cell adhesion for the test groups (Mach and AN), with greater adhesion of Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts compared to MC3T3 cells; in the AA group, there was greater adherence for MC3T3 cells compared to Balb/c 3T3 fibroblasts. Conclusions: The findings suggest that different surface characteristics can produce different biological responses, possibly cell-line dependent. These findings have important implications for the design of implantable medical devices, where the surface characteristics can significantly impact its biocompatibility.
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.