ReviewBioactive materials2027
When bioactivity comes at a mechanical cost: toward mechanically safe bioactivation of zirconia dental implants.
Review in Bioactive materials, 2027. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zirconia dental implants now achieve high survival in validated systems, yet survival alone conceals a more difficult design problem: the same interventions used to accelerate tissue integration can introduce defects, phase transformation, unstable interphases, or fatigue penalties in a brittle ceramic. This review therefore starts from clinical biological and mechanical failure phenotypes and asks a different question: when is bioactivation mechanically safe? We define mechanically safe bioactivation as a functional improvement in bone or soft tissue response that does not meaningfully reduce defect tolerance, phase stability, fatigue resistance, interfacial durability, or full implant integrity. A structured literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus from database inception to September 25, 2026, was used to construct an evidence map and identify finite processing windows for surface treatments and for material and structural reinforcement, rather than treating greater roughness, porosity, stabilization, or multifunctionality as inherently beneficial. Across the available evidence, the most defensible direction is to localize biological functions within mechanically supported regions while protecting the load-bearing core and critical tensile stress sites. This shifts zirconia implant development from searching for a single "best surface" toward designing a mechanically orchestrated implant system whose biological function remains credible after manufacturing, storage, insertion, aging, and loading.
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.