Osseointegration of implant with various surface treatments.

Ashish Kalawat, Wael Mohamed Zakaria, Gurleen Kaur, Pushkar Gupta, Swati Srivastava, Anshul Chandra, Kondaveeti Viswaja

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 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

7 authors.

Ashish KalawatDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental Collegeand Research Centre, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan, India.

Wael Mohamed ZakariaDepartment of Prosthodontic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Burayadh, Qassim 51452, Saudi Arabia.

Gurleen KaurIntern, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024, Odisha, India.

Pushkar GuptaDepartment of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Hitkarini Dental College and Hospital, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Swati SrivastavaDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Santosh Dental College, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Anshul ChandraDepartment of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Rama Dental College and Hospital, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Kondaveeti ViswajaDepartment of General Pathology, SRM Dental College, Ramapuram, Chennai-600089, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Osteointegration of dental implants is significantly influenced by surface treatment. The success of dental implants is largely dependent on osseointegration. Therefore, it is of interest to examine how four frequently applied surface treatments affected implant osseointegration. Based on the surface treatment used, standardized dental implants were split into four groups. Group I received a plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating; Group II received a titanium oxide nanocoating; Group III received a sandblast and acid etching; and Group IV received a UV light treatment. Following a nine-week simulated healing period under controlled settings, implants were placed in bovine bone blocks. Then they were subjected to biomechanical testing. Superior outcomes were shown by plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite, sandblasted, acid-etched and titanium oxide nano coating group.

Indexed as

Implantsuccesssurface treatment

Identifiers

PMID42109415

DOI10.6026/973206300220865

PMCPMC13150194

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.