ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Hydrophilicity, wettability, and elemental analysis of zirconia implant ceramic after surface conditioning methods as a function of storage time.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated how distinct surface-modification protocols and storage time affect the wettability, surface free energy (SFE), and elemental composition of zirconia. MATERIALS AND
methodsZirconia specimens were subjected to six surface conditioning methods: Control (CT), alumina airborne-particle abrasion (110 μm) (AL), tribochemical silica coating (30 μm) (SI), chemical etching (ET), alumina+etching (AL-ET), and laser treatment (LS). Measurements were taken at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Wettability was evaluated with water and diiodomethane contact angles to calculate work of adhesion (WoA) and surface free energy (SFE) via the Owens-Wendt-Rabel-Kaelble method. Elemental composition was assessed by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Data analysis involved one-way ANOVA with Tukey`s post-hoc tests for treatment comparison and two-way ANOVA for storage-time effects.
resultsSurface conditioning significantly affected contact angle, WoA, and SFE (p < 0.05), compared to storage. SI had the lowest water contact angles, highest WoA, and highest SFE, with a strong polar component. AL improved wettability and SFE, but less than SI. While ET showed the least hydrophilic properties at baseline but improved over time, LS was intermediate and stable. CT became more hydrophilic after 6–12 months and SI remained best. EDS confirmed these trends, with persistent silica, low aluminum after alumina treatment, and treatment-dependent elemental changes. The CT and LS spectra resembled those of the substrate.
conclusionsBoth the surface-modification strategy and storage time affected zirconia wettability, with surface modification playing a greater role. While tribochemical silica coating created a durable, hydrophilic surface, Al2O3 was less effective. Etching needed time to remove residues and laser treatment offered intermediate stability. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tribochemical silica coating provided the best zirconia implant surface by maintaining a durable, hydrophilic, high surface-free energy state that may promote early protein interaction and predictable osseointegration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41940972What 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.