Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biomechanical comparison of the sandblasted and acid‐etched and the machined and acid‐etched titanium surface for dental implants

Li, Dehua, Ferguson, Stephen J., Beutler, Thomas, Cochran, David L., Sittig, Caroline, Hirt, Hans Peter, Buser, Daniel·2002·Journal of Biomedical Materials Research

Abstract

To make a direct biomechanical comparison between the sandblasted and acid‐etched surface (SLA) and the machined and acid‐etched surface (MA), a well‐established animal model for implant removal torque testing was employed, using a split‐mouth experimental design. All implants had an identical cylindrical solid‐screw shape with the standard ITI thread configuration, without any macroscopic retentive structures. After 4, 8, and 12 weeks of bone healing, removal torque testing was performed to evaluate the interfacial shear strength of each surface type. Results showed that the SLA surface was more powerful in enhancing the interfacial shear strength of implants in comparison with the MA surface. Removal torque values of the SLA‐surfaced implants were about 30% higher than those of the MA‐surfaced implants (p = 0.002) except at 4 weeks, when the difference was at the threshold of statistical significance (p = 0.0519). The mean removal torque values for the SLA implants were 1.5074 Nm at 4 weeks, 1.8022 Nm at 8 weeks, and 1.7130 Nm at 12 weeks; and correspondingly, 1.1924 Nm, 1.3092 Nm, and 1.3226 Nm for the MA implants. It can be concluded that the SLA surface achieves a better bone anchorage than the MA surface, and that sandblasting before acid etching has a beneficial effect on the interfacial shear strength. As regards the bone–implant interfacial stiffness calculated from the torque‐rotation curve, the SLA implants showed an overall more than 5% higher stiffness compared with the MA implants, although the difference did not reach the statistical significance level. © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res 60: 325–332, 2002; DOI 10.1002/jbm.10063

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jbm.10063

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 250

Metadata

Authors
Li, D., Ferguson, S. J., Beutler, T., Cochran, D. L., Sittig, C., Hirt, H. P., & Buser, D.
Venue
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01-30
Volume
60
Issue
2
Pages
325-332
ISSN
  • 0021-9304 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-4636
OpenAlex
W2081132473
Cited by
250
References
1
FWCI
11.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biomechanical comparison of the sandblasted and acid‐etched and the machined and acid‐etched titanium surface for dental implants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/jbm.10063
The paper
Li, D., Ferguson, S. J., Beutler, T., Cochran, D. L., Sittig, C., Hirt, H. P., & Buser, D. (2002). Biomechanical comparison of the sandblasted and acid‐etched and the machined and acid‐etched titanium surface for dental implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10063

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.