ReviewJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Review in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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.
- Investigation of the Effect of Local Melatonin Application on Biomechanic Bone-Implant Connection in Titanium Implants with Different Surface Placed in Rat Tibias.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Survival and Bone Remodeling in Hybrid Surface Dental Implants Placed with 3 Surgical Protocols up to 5 Years: A Retrospective Practice-Based Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The surface roughness of dental implants plays a critical role in osseointegration by enhancing bone-implant contact. However, the optimal surface topography to maximize bone response is still under investigation. Materials and Methods: Titanium implants with three different surface roughness categories were tested: smooth (Ra = 0.5 μm), moderately rough (Ra = 1.5 μm), and rough (Ra = 3.0 μm). The samples were incubated with osteoblast-like cells (MG-63) for 14 and 28 days. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, cell viability (MTT assay), and mineralization (Alizarin Red staining) were assessed to quantify the bone response. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was performed to examine cell morphology on the implant surfaces. Results: At 14 days, ALP activity was significantly higher on moderately rough surfaces (30.5 ± 1.2 U/L) compared to smooth (18.2 U/L ±0.8 U/L) and rough surfaces (22.6 U/L ±1.0 U/L). The MTT assay showed improved cell proliferation on moderately rough surfaces (optical density 0.85 ± 0.03) compared to smooth (0.56 ± 0.02) and rough surfaces (0.61 ± 0.04). Mineralization at 28 days was most prominent on moderately rough surfaces, with Alizarin Red absorbance of 0.95 ± 0.02, followed by rough (0.75 ± 0.03) and smooth (0.40 ± 0.02). SEM analysis revealed well-spread cell morphology on both moderately rough and rough surfaces. Conclusion: Moderately rough implant surfaces exhibited superior bone response compared to smooth and rough surfaces, highlighting the importance of controlled surface topography in enhancing osseointegration. Future studies should explore the molecular mechanisms underlying these differences to optimize implant design further.
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.