ArticleBioinformation2024
An
Article in Bioinformation, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Permanent teeth that are lost are frequently replaced by dental implants. The success of an implant is influenced by its stability. Therefore, it is of interest to assess the primary and final stability of PRF-coated implants using a resonance frequency analyser. The study comprised twenty-four healthy patients of both sexes with at least one missing tooth. They were arbitrarily allocated to two groups, each consisting of 12 samples: Group I (Control) was not given platelet rich fibrin (PRF) and Group II (study group) was given PRF. Blood was drawn from the subjects to create the platelet-rich fibrin. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was used to record the primary and secondary implant stability quotient values for a total of 24 implants, 12 of which were coated with platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) (test group) and 12 of which were not (control group). A statistical analysis was performed on the collected data. There were 20 patients who were male and only 4 out of 3 instances were female. Overall primary implant stability was found to be statistically not significant when comparing with and without PRF (p = 0.1268). Conversely, a statistically considerable variation (p = 0.001) was found when comparing overall secondary implant stability with and without PRF. With the PRF group, there was less marginal bone loss. This suggests that PRF increases the stability of implants. Compared to the group without PRF, implants containing PRF demonstrated better Osseo integration and less marginal bone loss.
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.