ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of surface roughness of titanium implants on human fibroblast cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A soft-anchored titanium (Ti-6Al-4V) mesh implantable device was designed and morphologically characterised in an in vitro study. The mesh implant consists of a titanium mesh aimed at preserving continence and improving the quality of life for patients with a stoma. Titanium alloys are widely used in implantable devices such as knee and dental prosthetics; however, soft-anchored or percutaneous implant options remain limited. Surface roughness is known to influence cell adhesion and proliferation; thus, three titanium samples were produced with different surface finishes: non-polished (NP), matte polished (MaP), and mirror polished (MiP). Comparative analyses were conducted via cell metabolic activity, cytotoxicity, and immunocytochemistry assays with adult normal human dermal fibroblasts (NHDFs). No significant difference in NHDF metabolic activity was observed ([Formula: see text]), and the cytotoxicity results revealed no toxicity ([Formula: see text]) between the surfaces. Collagen type I expression was 568.86 ± 88.12, 433.26 ± 147.02, and 681.52 ± 86.14 [Formula: see text] for NP, MaP, and MiP, respectively, whereas it was 544.54 ± 110.69 [Formula: see text] in the controls ([Formula: see text]). Fibronectin-positive areas were 438.24 ± 109.05, 336.97 ± 80.22, and 311.62 ± 88.66 [Formula: see text] for NP, MaP, and MiP, respectively, while they were 318.82 ± 52.56 [Formula: see text] for the controls ([Formula: see text]). The results indicate that surface roughness (Ra) did not significantly affect cell proliferation, cytotoxicity, or ECM protein expression. Thus, under these in vitro conditions, we observed no detectable detrimental effect of surface roughness on fibroblast metabolic activity, cytotoxicity, or ECM protein expression, suggesting that extensive polishing steps may not be essential for achieving cytocompatibility of Ti-6Al-4V mesh components in devices designed for stoma patients, although further preclinical studies are required before any clinical recommendations can be made.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.