ArticleBioMed research international2026
Distribution and Chemical Nature of Al
Article in BioMed research international, 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.
- Distribution and Chemical Nature of AlBioMed research international · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundOsseointegration is a fundamental requirement for the long-term success of dental implants. Several implant systems have demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes over time, confirming their high reliability in the treatment of edentulism, even in patients with chronic disease. The success of these devices is closely linked to the characteristics of the implant surface, which directly influence the biological response of the surrounding bone.
objectivesThe primary objective of this study was to investigate the presence of foreign material on the surface of dental implants following aluminum oxide sandblasting and subsequent surface treatment procedures. This analysis was conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) to characterize the surface morphology and elemental composition. The secondary objective was to evaluate the cytotoxic potential of the implant surface through in vitro assays, in accordance with ISO 10993-5:2009, to assess its biocompatibility and suitability for clinical application. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty threaded screw-shaped sandblasted Grade 5 titanium dental implants Dental Implant Advance 4.2 × 11.5 mm (Kinetical Implant, Buenos Aires, Argentina) for SEM combined with EDS, in order to identify the presence of possible organic contaminants or residues of the surface treatment process. Another 20 dental implant samples of the same type (4.2 × 11.5 mm) were used for the cytotoxicity test.
resultSEM analysis revealed a surface morphology consistent with sandblasting treatment, characterized by uniform roughness. However, particles with irregular shapes were observed in certain areas. Aluminum oxide particles were observed adhering to the surface of the implant. The cell viability percentages for each group were as follows: vehicle, 100.0%; negative control (HDPE), 96.0%; positive control (latex), 0.24%; and test samples, 96.9%. Based on the results obtained, the test sample did not show any relevant cytotoxic effects, maintaining a cell viability above 70% and OD values comparable to the negative controls. Therefore, it can be considered noncytotoxic in accordance with ISO 10993-5.
conclusionIn conclusion, these findings indicate that the presence of residual alumina particles, resulting from the sandblasting process, does not exert a negative impact on cellular viability. Consequently, such residues can be considered not cytotoxic under the tested conditions, supporting the biocompatibility of the implant surface.
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.