Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28160204›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2017

The effect of different cleaning methods on the surface and temperature of failed titanium implants: an in vitro study.

Sema S Hakki, Gulsah Tatar, Niyazi Dundar, Burak Demiralp

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sema S HakkiDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, 42079, Konya, Turkey. sshakki@yahoo.com.
Gulsah TatarDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, 42079, Konya, Turkey.
Niyazi DundarResearch Center of Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.
Burak DemiralpDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Selçuk University · TRHacettepe University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this in vitro study are to compare the efficacy of different cleaning methods in removing debris of failed implants and to detect thermal changes of the implants treated by various scaling instruments. Twenty-seven failed implants and two unused implants as control were included to this study-group 1: plastic curette (P), group 2: titanium curette (T), group 3: carbon curette (C), group 4: titanium brush (TB), group 5: Er:YAG laser (laser 1 (L1) 100 mJ/pulse at 10 Hz), group 6: Er:YAG laser (laser 2 (L2) 150 mJ/pulse at 10 Hz), group 7: Er:YAG laser (laser 3 (L3) 200 mJ/pulse at 10 Hz), group 8: ultrasonic scaler appropriate for titanium (US), group 9: air abrasive method (AA) + citric acid, and group 10: implantoplasty (I). The changes on the treated/untreated titanium surfaces and remnant debris were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Temperature of the implants before and after treatment was detected using a thermocouple. The use of air abrasive and citric acid combination and Er:YAG laser groups was found as the best methods for the decontamination of titanium surfaces of failed implant. When the hand instruments were compared, titanium curette was found better than both the plastic and the carbon curettes which leave plastics and carbon remnants on the titanium surface. The temperature was higher after hand instrumentation when compared to other experimental groups (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of the present in vitro model, it can be concluded that the best method for decontamination of the implant surface is the use of air abrasives and Er:YAG laser.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsTitaniumDecontaminationHumansLasers, Solid-StateLow-Level Light TherapyMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSurface PropertiesTemperatureDental ImplantsTitaniumAir abrasiveEr:YAG laserHand instrumentsImplant surfaceTemperatureUltrasonic scaler

Identifiers

PMID28160204
OpenAlexW2586040647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.