SynthesisOral health & preventive dentistry2025
Do Super-hydrophilic Surfaces Affect Implant Primary Stability in the Early Healing Phase of Osseointegration? A Systematic Review with Metanalysis.
Synthesis in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeImplant stability, related to mechanical (primary) and biological (secondary) bone-to-implant interactions, is essential for osseointegration. Implant surface bioactivation is a process designed to accelerate and enhance surface-cell interaction.The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether a beneficial effect of bioactive (BS) over traditional surfaces (TS) can be identified. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases was performed to identify randomized (RCT) and non-randomized controlled trials comparing BS and TS implants. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for non-RCTs. Outcome variables were implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured through resonance frequency analysis from placement to prosthetic loading, one-year implant survival rate, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Meta-analysis was performed where possible.
resultsOf the 6920 records identified, 13 RCTs and two non-RCTs were included, reporting on 1256 implants (49.8% TS and 50.2% BS) in 596 patients. Four of the studies had a low risk of bias, three had a moderate risk and eight had a high risk. The meta-analysis showed no evidence of an effect of implant surface on survival rate (p = 0.99, 10 studies) and MBL (p = 0.86, 5 studies). At baseline (10 studies) and at one month (9 studies) the ISQ did not differ statistically significantly different between groups. A statistically significantly greater increase in ISQ was found for the BS implants compared to the TS implants (p = 0.04) at three months after placement (9 studies).
conclusionAn advantage of BS over TS during the early osseointegration phase could not be demonstrated, but a positive effect on implant stability seems to occur after three months of placement. The statement that bioactive surfaces may safely allow early and immediate implant loading is insufficiently supported by the current evidence.
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.