ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2018
Anaerobic Bacteria in Implants and Homologous Teeth 2-14 Years after Implantation.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Bacterial Load Parameters in Subgingival Plaque during Peri-implantitis and Periodontitis Using the RT-PCR Method.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of the study was to establish whether there is a difference in the presence of potentially pathogenic anaerobic microorganisms around the implant and the homologous tooth in implant-prosthetic patients who received individual information about maintaining their oral hygiene. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study included 30 subjects with dental implants and metal-ceramic crowns. A periodontal probe was used to record the approximal plaque index (API), the papilla bleeding index (PBI), the periodontal pocket probing depth (PD) and the gingival recession. The fluid around the implant and the gingival sulcus fluid around the homologous tooth on the opposite lateral side were sampled.
resultsThe results have shown a positive API and PBI on 30% of the implants and a negative one on 70% of the implants. The average mucosal retraction measured around the implants was 0.15 mm, and the average probing depth was 2.25 mm. The API and PBI were positive on 78.3% of the homologous teeth. The average gingival retraction measured was 1.06 mm, and the average probing depth was 1.85 mm. Anaerobic bacteria were found in 12 out of 30 subjects (40%). Anaerobic bacteria were isolated only on the implant in 7 subjects, only on the homologous tooth in 3 subjects and both on the implant and the homologous tooth in 2 subjects.
conclusionsAnaerobic bacteria were more abundantly present on implants than on homologous teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.