MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412364922 · doi:10.5037/jomr.2025.16205

Effect of Vacuum Plasma Activation on Early Implant Stability: a Single-Blind Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial

2025· article· en· W4412364922 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Stacchi, Antonio Rapani, Marco Montanari, Teresa Lombardi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryRandomized controlled trialImplantSingle blindClinical trialOrthodonticsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Plasma surface activation of dental implants has been proposed to enhance osseointegration by improving titanium surface chemistry. However, clinical data in humans remain limited. This randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the effect of vacuum plasma treatment applied to titanium implants immediately prior to insertion on their stability pattern during the early phases of healing in human subjects. Material and Methods: Motion - MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd.). Implant stability was assessed at placement and at 7, 14, 21, 28, 42, 60, and 90 days using resonance frequency analysis (implant stability quotient [ISQ]). Results: All 48 implants achieved osseointegration at 90 days, with no adverse events or complications. Mean insertion torque did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.86). Both groups exhibited a typical initial reduction in stability, with the lowest ISQ values at 21 days. Plasma-treated implants showed a more favourable recovery pattern, with significantly higher ISQ values than controls at 60 and 90 days (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03, respectively). The absolute difference in ISQ values between groups remained limited. Conclusions: Vacuum plasma activation of titanium implants may contribute to a more favourable early stability pattern, although both plasma-treated and untreated implants demonstrated predictable osseointegration outcomes. Further research with larger cohorts and longer follow-up is needed to assess the clinical significance of these findings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial ResearchSame topicPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207