Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623410›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2018

The clinical outcome and microbiological profile of bone-anchored hearing systems (BAHS) with different abutment topographies: a prospective pilot study.

Margarita Trobos, Martin Lars Johansson, Sofia Jonhede, Hanna Peters, Maria Hoffman, Omar Omar, Peter Thomsen, Malou Hultcrantz

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ten years of experience with the Ponto bone-anchored hearing system-A systematic literature review.Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Pain and infection are the primary reasons for elective retrieval of bone-anchored implants.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Achieving stomal continence with an ileal pouch and a percutaneous implant.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Margarita TrobosDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 412, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden. margarita.trobos@biomaterials.gu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9253-6771
Martin Lars JohanssonDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 412, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7269-0288
Sofia JonhedeOticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden.
Hanna PetersOticon Medical AB, Askim, Sweden.
Maria HoffmanDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 412, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Omar OmarDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 412, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2610-1294
Peter ThomsenDepartment of Biomaterials, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, P.O. Box 412, 405 30, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3910-6665
Malou HultcrantzDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1489-5410
University of Gothenburg · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

The ALF/LUA Research Grant ALFGBG-448851The Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF) RMA15-0110 2016The Swedish Research Council K2015-52X-09495-28-4
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this prospective clinical pilot study, abutments with different topologies (machined versus polished) were compared with respect to the clinical outcome and the microbiological profile. Furthermore, three different sampling methods (retrieval of abutment, collection of peri-abutment exudate using paper-points, and a small peri-abutment soft-tissue biopsy) were evaluated for the identification and quantification of colonising bacteria.

methodsTwelve patients, seven with machined abutment and five with polished abutment, were included in the analysis. Three different sampling procedures were employed for the identification and quantification of colonising bacteria from baseline up to 12 months, using quantitative culturing. Clinical outcome measures (Holgers score, hygiene, pain, numbness and implant stability) were investigated.

resultsThe clinical parameters, and total viable bacteria per abutment or in tissue biopsies did not differ significantly between the polished and machined abutments. The total CFU/mm

conclusionsThere was no difference in the clinical outcome with the use of polished versus machined abutment at 3 and 12 months after implantation. The present pilot trial largely confirmed a suitable study design, sampling and analytical methodology to determine the effects of modified BAHS abutment properties. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. Controlled prospective comparative study.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBacterial LoadEquipment DesignFemaleHearing AidsHearing LossHumansMaleMiddle AgedPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesSuture AnchorsAbutmentBacteriaBAHSBone-anchored hearing systemSkinStaphylococcus

Identifiers

PMID29623410
PMCPMC5951894
OpenAlexW2795921871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.