↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of a new dental implant bioactive surface: histological and histomorphometric comparative study in minipigs

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Oral Investigations, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of a new dental implant bioactive surface: histological and histomorphometric comparative study in minipigs
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00784-017-2223-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mariano Herrero-Climent, Manuel M. Romero Ruizª, Pedro Lázaro Calvo, José Vicente Ríos Santos, Roman A. Perez, Francisco Javier Gil Mur

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess, by histomorphometric analysis, the degree of bone apposition on two types of dental implant's surfaces: a novel implant that combines Al2O3 abrasive particle blasting with thermochemical treatment (ContacTi), compared to a standard surface treatment obtained by sandblasting and acid etching (shot blasting). Twelve minipigs were used, placing the studied implants in the maxillae, and divided into three groups according to the time of sacrifice: 2, 4, and 8 weeks after implant placement. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were performed following standardized tissue polymerization, cutting, and staining and examined under optical and high-resolution electron microscope. For all measurements, the novel surface presented higher levels of osseointegration as compared to the shot blasting surface. Bone to implant contact (BIC) in the maxillae for ContacTi presented values of 49.02, 83.20, and 85.58% at 2, 4, and 8 weeks, respectively, significantly higher compared to the shot blasting surface values of 39.32, 46.53, and 46.20% for the same time points. Bone area density (BAD) presented values of 26.52, 61.21, and 59.50% for ContacTi surface implants and 22.95, 36.26, and 49.50% for the shot blasted surface implants. Signs of osteoconductivity were observed in the ContacTi surfaces at 2 weeks. The ContacTi surface achieved a faster growth of hard tissues around the implants, when compared to the shot blasting surface, and for all evaluated histomorphometric parameters, the values were higher at all measured time points. ContacTi could be a new surface improving the osseointegration in oral implantology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 15%
Researcher 5 11%
Lecturer 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 39%
Materials Science 6 13%
Engineering 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,880,010
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#518
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,894
of 324,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#4
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.