ArticleCureus2024
Comprehensive Evaluation of Novel Biomaterials for Dental Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental implantology is continually evolving in its quest to discover new biomaterials to improve dental implant success rates. The study explored the potential of innovative biomaterials for dental implant surfaces, including titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) alloy, hydroxyapatite-coated titanium (HA-Ti), and porous polyetheretherketone (PEEK), in comparison to conventional commercially pure titanium (CP Ti). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 186 samples were harvested for the analysis. Biomaterials were thoroughly evaluated in terms of surface topography, chemical composition, biocompatibility, mechanical properties, osseointegration performance, and bacterial adhesion. Study methods and techniques included scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), cell culture variants, tensile tests, hardness measurements, histological analysis, and microbiological testing.
resultsSurface topography examination showed significant disparities between the biomaterials: Ti-Zr had a better roughness of 1.23 μm, while HA-Ti demonstrated a smoother surface at 0.98 μm. Chemical composition evaluation indicated the presence of a Ti-Zr alloy in Ti-Zr, calcium-phosphorus richness in HA-Ti, and high titanium amounts in CP Ti. The mechanical properties assessment showed that Ti-Zr and CP Ti had good tensile strengths of 750 MPa and 320 HV. In addition, bacterial adhesion tests showed low propensities for Ti-Zr and HA-Ti at 1200 and 800 cfu/cm
conclusionTi-Zr and HA-Ti performed better than the other biomaterials in surface topography and mechanical properties and against bacterial adhesion. This study emphasizes that multi-parameter analysis is critical for clinical decision-making, allowing for the selection of the currently available biomaterial, which could be conducive to the long-term success of the implant.
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.