ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Impact of additive manufacturing process of titanium implants on peri-implant human bone.
Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the influence of the additive manufacturing (AM) process of titanium implants on bone-implant contact (BIC) and the mechanical properties of peri-implant human bone after eight weeks of healing.
methodsTwo types of experimental micro-implants were tested: milled implants with treated surface (MT), and implants produced by AM using titanium powder. Fifteen completely edentulous patients received two temporary micro-implants in the posterior maxilla in a split-mouth model. These implants provided support for an immediate interim full prosthesis during the healing phase of conventional implants placed simultaneously. After eight weeks, the micro-implants and surrounding bone tissue were removed using trephine drills and processed for histological and mechanical analysis. Nanohardness and elastic modulus were measured using a Berkovich indenter on a dynamically controlled instrument.
resultsStatistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney test. Histometric analysis showed a mean bone-implant contact (BIC) rate of 23.12 ± 12.52% in the AM group and 18.39 ± 4.11% in the MT group. Although the AM group exhibited a higher BIC%, the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed in the mechanical analysis variables, neither in the peri-implant bone tissue nor on the implant surfaces.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this human study, the AM implants did not influence either the mechanical properties of the peri-implant bone or the BIC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41792397What 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.