ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Osseointegration of Anodized vs. Sandblasted Implant Surfaces in a Guided Bone Regeneration Acute Dehiscence-Type Defect: An In Vivo Experimental Mandibular Minipig Model.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aetiology of early implant failure: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Osseointegration in the Absence of Primary Stability: An Experimental Preclinical Mandibular Minipig Overpreparation In Vivo Model.Clinical oral implants research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis controlled preclinical study analyzed the effect of implant surface characteristics on osseointegration and crestal bone formation in a grafted dehiscence defect minipig model. MATERIAL AND
methodsA standardized 3 mm × 3 mm acute-type buccal dehiscence minipig model grafted with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and covered with a porcine collagen membrane after 2 and 8 weeks of healing was utilized. Crestal bone formation was analyzed histologically and histomorphometrically to compare three implant groups: (1) a novel, commercially available, gradient anodized (NGA) implant, to two custom-made geometric replicas of implant "1," (2) a superhydrophilic micro-rough large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched surface, and (3) a relatively hydrophobic micro-rough large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched surface.
resultsAt 2 and 8 weeks, there was no difference between the amount and height of newly formed bone (NBH, new bone height; BATA, bone area to total area) for any of the groups (p > 0.05). First bone-to-implant contact (fBIC) and vertical bone creep (VBC) at 2 and 8 weeks were significantly increased for Groups 2 and 3 compared to Group 1 (p < 0.05). At 8 weeks, osseointegration in the dehiscence (dehiscence bone-implant-contact; dBIC) was significantly higher for Groups 2 and 3 compared to Group 1 (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe amount of newly formed bone (BATA) and NBH was not influenced by surface type. However, moderately rough surfaces demonstrated significantly superior levels of osseointegration (dBIC) and coronal bone apposition (fBIC) in the dehiscence defect compared to the NGA surface at 2 and 8 weeks.
trial registrationFor this type of study, clinical trial registration is not required. This study was conducted at the Biomedical Department of Lund University (Lund, Sweden) and approved by the local Ethics Committee of the University (M-192-14).
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.