Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29280076›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2018

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of the effects of different treatment modalities on titanium healing caps: a randomized, controlled clinical trial.

Kristina Emily Schmidt, Thorsten Mathias Auschill, Christian Heumann, Roland Frankenberger, Sigrun Eick, Anton Sculean, Nicole Birgit Arweiler

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Attachment of Respiratory Pathogens andJournal of clinical medicine · 2023
    Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kristina Emily SchmidtDepartment of Periodontology, Philipps-University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Strasse 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Thorsten Mathias AuschillDepartment of Periodontology, Philipps-University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Strasse 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Christian HeumannDepartment of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
Roland FrankenbergerDepartment of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, Philipps-University, Marburg, Germany.
Sigrun EickDepartment of Periodontology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Anton SculeanDepartment of Periodontology, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland.
Nicole Birgit ArweilerDepartment of Periodontology, Philipps-University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Strasse 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany. arweiler@med.uni-marburg.de.

Funding

Camlog Foundation CF41203
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of treatment modalities on titanium surface characteristics and surrounding tissues. MATERIALS AND

methodsEighteen participants each had four titanium healing caps (HC) attached to four newly inserted implants. After healing, each HC was randomly assigned to either (1) titanium curettes (TC), (2) stainless steel ultrasonic tip (PS), (3) erythritol air-polishing powder (EP), or (4) only rubber cup polishing (CON). Probing depths (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), matrix metalloproteinase 8 (MMP-8), and periopathogens were recorded before and 3 months following instrumentation. After final assessments, HCs were removed, cleaned, and subjected to (a) bacterial colonization (Streptococcus gordonii, 24 h; mixed culture, 24 h) and (b) gingival fibroblasts (5 days). HC surfaces were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

resultsNo significant differences between the groups were evident before or after instrumentation for PD and BOP (except TC showed a significant decrease in PD; p = 0.049). MMP-8 levels and bacterial loads were always very low. MMP-8 decreased further after instrumentation, while bacteria levels showed no change. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were evident in bacterial colonization or fibroblast attachment. A comparison of the overall mean SEM surface roughness scores showed a significant difference between all groups (p < 0.0001) with the lowest roughness after EP.

conclusionsAll treatments performed yielded comparable outcomes and may be implemented safely. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians may fear implant surface damage, but all instrumentation types are safe and non-damaging. They can be implemented as needed upon considering the presence of staining and soft and hard deposits.

Indexed as

Dental Implantation, EndosseousDental ImplantsAdultAgedDental ProphylaxisErythritolFibroblastsHumansMatrix Metalloproteinase 8Microscopy, Electron, ScanningMiddle AgedMucositisPeri-ImplantitisPeriodontal IndexPowdersProspective StudiesDental ImplantsErythritolMatrix Metalloproteinase 8PowdersStainless SteelTitaniumAttachment of fibroblastsBiocompatibilityBiofilm formationBleeding on probingHealing capsInstrumentationMatrix metalloproteinase-8Probing depthsSurface roughnessTitanium dental implants

Identifiers

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.