ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2024
Histological and scanning electron microscopy investigation of the effects of titanium surface modifications on osseointegration in rabbits.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The next frontier in osseointegration: energy and speed as critical determinants and their enhancement by UV photofunctionalization.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Article
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
This study aimed to compare the novel Estaş Medical Anodization (EMA) surface treatment technique with the techniques commonly used in the literature and to examine their effects on osteointegration in the rabbit tibia. A total of 24 rabbits used in this study were divided into 3 groups, with 8 rabbits in each group. Using both tibias of all rabbits in the study, screws belonging to the control group were placed in the left tibia, and the right tibia belonging to the experimental group were placed. In the first 8 rabbits, a single experimental group in the right tibia were used; in the second 8 rabbits, 2 different experimental groups in the right tibia were used; and in the last 8 rabbits, 2 different experimental groups in the right tibia were used. Thus, 5 different experimental groups with 8 screws in each group and a separate control group were formed for each of them. EMA-treated surfaces were named 200-800 nm iris oxidation and 800-1200 nm gray oxidation according to the TiO2 layer thickness. Group 1 was implanted with mini-screws prepared with chemical etching+EMA iris oxidation, while group 2 was implanted with sandblasted, large-grit and acid-etched (SLA) mini screws treated with EMA gray oxidation. Group 3 was implanted with mini-screws treated with EMA gray oxidation, group 4 was implanted with mini-screws treated with chemical etching+micro-arc oxidation, and group 5 was implanted with mini-screws treated with chemical etching+EMA gray oxidation. The control group was implanted with mini-screws prepared with pure titanium. At the end of 6 weeks, osseointegration percentages were calculated and compared using histological and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analyses. The histological results confirmed the increase in osseointegration percentages in all experimental groups compared to those that received pure titanium implants (P values control group vs group 1=.005, control group vs group 2, 3, 4, 5=.001). The comparison between the groups revealed that the chemical etching+EMA gray oxidation modification technique (group 5) significantly increased osseointegration compared to the SLA+EMA gray oxidation technique (group 5 vs group 2 P=.016) and the chemical etching+EMA iris oxidation technique (group 5 vs group 1 Pp=.001). The EMA gray oxidation technique (group 3) significantly increased osseointegration compared to the chemical etching+EMA iris oxidation technique (group 1) (group 3 vs group 1 P=.043). The results of the SEM analysis showed that osseointegration was significantly increased in all experimental groups compared to that in the pure titanium (control) group (P values control group vs group 1, 2, 3=.001, control group vs Group 4,5=.006). The mean osseointegration percentage in the experimental groups was the highest in group 5, followed by group 4, group 3 and group 1 equally, and group 2. However, the differences among the experimental were not significant (group 1, group 2, group 3, group 4 vs group 5 P=.408). The EMA titanium surface modification techniques we developed significantly increased osseointegration compared to the pure titanium surface. The EMA gray oxidation technique seems to result in higher osseointegration rates than the EMA iris oxidation technique, and similar rates can be found with the SLA and chemical etching techniques. N/A.
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.