ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of Microarc Oxidation and sandblasting on the retention of cement-retained implant restorations: An
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
Purpose: The aim was to compare the impact of two distinct surface treatment methods on implant abutments concerning the retention of implant-supported restorations. Materials and methods: 30 implant analogs, individually embedded into blocks of autopolymerizing acrylic resin, were paired with 30 titanium implant abutments and divided into three groups (each, n = 10) based on surface treatment. Group I included untreated implant abutments; group II included abutments treated with sandblasting; and group III comprised abutments treated with Microarc Oxidation. A qualitative surface analysis was conducted using scanning electron microscope. Each abutment was connected to its analog embedded in the resin block. Resin copings were fabricated using rapid additive prototyping (3D printing) and cast into Ni-Cr alloy copings and cemented onto the abutments using zinc-polycarboxylate cement. Test samples were subjected to tensile bond strength (TBS) testing using an Axial-Torsion Servohydraulic Fatigue-Testing System. The results were tabulated and subjected to statistical evaluation. Results: The mean TBS of the cemented cast copings on implant abutments was 4.276 MPa-group I; 6.340 MPa-group II; and 8.117 MPa-group III. Upon comparison, group III demonstrated the highest mean TBS, followed by group II, while group I exhibited the lowest strength. Qualitative surface analysis revealed that the test samples in group II and group III had greater surface roughness compared to those in group I. Conclusion: The surface treatments of implant abutments using sandblasting and Microarc Oxidation enhanced the tensile bond strength of cemented cast copings and, MAO significantly increased retention of cement-retained restorations compared to sandblasting.
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.