ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Evaluation of the Impact of Different Surface Treatments on Implant Surface: An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Osseointegration of implant with various surface treatments.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Optical measurement methods of the 3D-position stability of implant-abutment connections - an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Review
- Comparison of misfit and roughness of CAD-CAM ZrO, selective laser sintered CoCr and preformed Ti implant abutment crowns.BMC oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The current study was conducted to assess the effects of various surface treatments on the implant surface. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 dental implants measuring 16 mm in length and 5 mm in diameter were used, along with the appropriate abutments. Depending on the surface treatment used, the samples were randomly split into three groups, with 15 implants in each group: Group 1: Control, Group 2: UV light-treated, Group 3: Sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA)-treated. After surface treatment, a scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to assess the test samples' surface properties. All sample images were captured using a 3000× magnification. After all three groups' surfaces were treated, the surface roughness was measured using a digital optical profilometer with a stylus speed of 0.5 mm/s that was connected to computer software. Results: The maximum surface roughness was found in the group treated with SLA (0.714 ± 0.12), followed by the group treated with UV light (0.692 ± 0.09) and the control group (0.516 ± 0.12). There was a significant difference found between different surface treatment methods. Conclusion: The present study concluded that the group that received the SLA treatment had the highest surface roughness when compared to the UV light and control groups.
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.