Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Early Microbiological and Immunological Parameters in Sandblasted, Large-Grit Acid-Etched Implant Surfaces: A Split Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo compare microbiological and immunological parameters of two sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implant surfaces during the first 8 weeks of healing following implant placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA dual-center, split-mouth, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on patients receiving one test (modified hydrophilic surface) and one control (conventional surface) implant in different quadrants. Peri-implant crevicular fluid samples were collected at implant placement and at 1, 2, 4, and 8 weeks to assess biomarkers of inflammation (Interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, Tumor Necrosis Factor-α, IL-2), biomarkers of anti-inflammation (IL-4, IL-10), and biomarkers of bone metabolism (osteocalcin, osteopontin [OPN], and vascular endothelial growth factor-α [VEGF-α]). Additionally, submucosal samples were obtained at implant placement and at 1, 2, and 4 weeks and analyzed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and 16S rRNA sequencing. Biomarkers and qPCR data were analyzed with a general linear model using log10-transformed values. Microbiome data were analyzed via Wilcoxon tests and PERMANOVA.
resultsSixty patients were included in the 8-week analysis. VEGF-α levels were significantly higher at 1 week for the conventional surface (p = 0.018). OPN and IL-10 significantly increased from baseline to 4 weeks in both groups. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium species were the most prevalent bacteria; however, no significant differences were found between the surfaces in bacterial load analysis by qPCR. Additionally, no significant differences were observed between groups for microbiome diversity.
conclusionNo differences were detected between the conventional and the modified hydrophilic surfaces in the immunological and microbiological parameters assessed during early implant healing.
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.