Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41941033›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of implant dentistry2026

Peri-implant tissue response to three implants engaging retained roots: a histologic report in the pig mandible.

Serge Szmukler-Moncler, Roni Kolerman, Nirit Tagger-Green, Florian Beuer, Stefan Milicescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of implant dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Serge Szmukler-MonclerDepartment of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité University of Medicine, Charité Center 03, Assmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany. ssm@bluewin.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4235-909X
Roni KolermanDepartment of Periodontology, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Nirit Tagger-GreenDepartment of Periodontology, Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Florian BeuerDepartment of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité University of Medicine, Charité Center 03, Assmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197, Berlin, Germany.
Stefan MilicescuDepartment of Esthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Carol Davila University of Medicine, Bucarest, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe biological response of dental tissues to implants placed in contact with retained roots is poorly documented. The aim of this report is to describe the histological findings of three implants that inadvertently engaged inflammation-free retained root fragments during placement and were retrieved after 10 and 12 weeks of healing in the pig mandible. MATERIALS AND

methodsThree implants were retrieved from a preclinical pig model in which fractured root remnants were inadvertently left in situ following tooth extraction; implants were placed after a three-month healing period and were harvested after 10 and 12 weeks. Histological evaluation was carried out using optical microscopy, polarized light microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy coupled with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy to characterize the tissue responses at the implant-root interface. Three configurations of implant-root contact were identified: (1) an implant fully embedded within a retained root composed of dentin and osteodentin; (2) an implant presenting apical contact with a retained root; and (3) an implant apex engaging fractured-root debris.

resultsThe implant fully embedded within the retained root exhibited uninterrupted contact with dentin and osteodentin, with no intervening soft-tissue layer. Areas of tight implant-dentin apposition were devoid of cellular activity; conversely, in regions where microgaps or interfacial space were present, osteodentin showed active modeling and remodeling along the implant surface. In the second and third samples, osseointegration was observed along the implant body in contact with bone despite the presence of apical contact with residual root tissues. Newly formed osteodentin was intimately adapted to the implant apex, whereas the periodontal ligament that persisted did not extend appreciably onto the implant surface.

conclusionsThis preclinical report describes the histological response to three implants in contact with non-infected retained roots. In two specimens with partial root contact, bone was present at the interface and osseointegration was observed. In all three specimens, newly formed osteodentin was present at the implant interface, with evidence of early modeling and remodeling. Further controlled investigations are required to confirm these observations and to assess their reproducibility and broader biological relevance.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsMandibleTooth RootAnimalsMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSpectrometry, X-Ray EmissionSwineDental Implants

Identifiers

PMID41941033
PMCPMC13069051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.