ArticleScientific reports2024
Biocompatibility analysis of titanium bone wedges coated by antibacterial ceramic-polymer layer.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the surface treatment results of titanium, veterinary bone wedges. The functional coating is composed of a porous oxide layer (formed by a plasma electrolytic oxidation process) and a polymer poly(sebacic anhydride) (PSBA) layer loaded with amoxicillin (formed by dip coatings). The coatings were porous and composed of Ca (4.16%-6.54%) and P (7.64%-9.89% determined by scanning electron microscopy with EDX) in the upper part of the implant. The titanium bone wedges were hydrophilic (54° water contact angle) and rough (surface area (Sa):1.16 μm) The surface tension determined using diiodomethane was 68.6 ± 2.0° for the anodized implant and was similar for hybrid coatings: 60.7 ± 2.2°. 12.87 ± 0.91 µg/mL of amoxicillin was released from the implants during the first 30 min after immersion in the phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution. This concentration was enough to inhibit the Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, and Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC12228 growth. The obtained inhibition zones were between 27.3 ± 2.1 mm-30.7 ± 0.6 mm when implant extract after 1 h or 4 h immersion in PBS was collected. Various implant biocompatibility analyses were performed under in vivo conditions, including pyrogen test (3 rabbits), intracutaneous reactivity (3 rabbits, 5 places by side), acute systemic toxicity (20 house mice), and local lymph node assay (LLNA) (20 house mice). The extracts from implants were collected in polar and non-polar solutions, and the tests were conducted according to ISO 10993 standards. The results from the in vivo tests showed, that the implant's extracts are not toxic (mass body change below 5%), not sensitizing (SI < 1.6), and do not show the pyrogen effect (changes in the temperature 0.15ºC). The biocompatibility tests were performed in a certificated laboratory with a good laboratory practice certificate after all the necessary permissions.
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.