ArticleBrazilian dental journal2026
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global increase in the use of dental implants also increases treatment-related complications. Peri-implantitis is a matter of concern at this stage. This study aimed to compare the behavior of an additive manufacturing implant with commercially available implants with different surface treatments, exposed or not to a peri-implantitis challenge. Eighty implants with three different surfaces (Straumann BLT [A], Noble Biocare Active [B], Plenum 3D printed titanium implants test [C], and Plenum 3D printed titanium implants served as a negative control [D]) were placed into male minipigs (Minipig Br1) mandibles on both sides. Three months after implant placement, peri-implantitis was induced with cotton ligatures in one side of the mandible, and an intraosseous implant served as a control on both sides. Histometric analysis of marginal bone loss did not present a statistical difference between groups (p>0,05), but regarding Bone to Implant Contact (BIC), the B group presented the highest percentage. The additive manufacturing implant performed like commercially available implants in all the performed analyses, suggesting that additive manufacturing could be an alternative for the fabrication of osseointegrated implants.
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.