Hydrophilic versus hydrophobic implant coatings: A comparative osseointegration study.

Ravi Ranjan Sinha, Sandeep Kashyap, Gourav Kumar Sahu, Gurdeep Kaur Chauhan, Pragati Mishra, Mayadevi Mayadevi

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

6 authors.

Ravi Ranjan SinhaDepartment of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, The Oxford Dental College, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Sandeep KashyapDepartment of Dental Surgery, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Medical Sciences, Sikkim Manipal University, Gangtok, Sikkim, India.

Gourav Kumar SahuDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, RKDF Dental College and Research Centre, RKDF University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Gurdeep Kaur ChauhanDepartment of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, The Oxford Dental College, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Pragati MishraDepartment of Orthodontics, Mishra Dental Clinic and Orthodontic Care, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Mayadevi MayadeviDepartment of Prosthodontics and Implantology, SB Patil Institute of Dental Science and Research, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bidar, Karnataka, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving rapid and stable osseointegration remains a persistent challenge in dental implantology, particularly with variations in implant surface properties. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surface coatings on osseointegration using clinical and radiographic parameters. Hence, a prospective comparative design involving 100 patients showed that hydrophilic implants yielded significantly higher implant stability (ISQ values) and reduced peri-implant bone loss over a 6-month follow-up period. Improved peri-implant soft tissue health, evidenced by reduced probing depth and bleeding on probing, was also observed in the hydrophilic group. Thus, we report hydrophilic surface modification as a superior strategy for enhancing early osseointegration and improving overall implant prognosis.

Indexed as

dental implantshydrophilic implant surfacehydrophobic implant surfaceimplant stabilityOsseointegration

Identifiers

PMID42701692

DOI10.6026/973206300223289

PMCPMC13545868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.