ArticleClujul medical (1957)2018
Sterilization protocol for porous dental implants made by Selective Laser Melting.
Article in Clujul medical (1957), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synergistic Advances in Additive Manufacturing and Surface Engineering for Polymeric Biomedical Devices.ACS polymers Au · 2025Review
- The Interaction between Oral Bacteria and 3D Titanium Porous Surfaces Produced by Selective Laser Melting-A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Wood as Possible Renewable Material for Bone Implants-Literature Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
- Prevention of surgical site infection: a ten-step approach.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2023Review
- Investigation of bactericidal effect of a mid-infrared free electron laser on Escherichia coli.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Low-Cost Cranioplasty-A Systematic Review of 3D Printing in Medicine.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Evaluation of ethylene oxide, gamma radiation, dry heat and autoclave sterilization processes on extracellular matrix of biomaterial dental scaffolds.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Long-lasting renewable antibacterial porous polymeric coatings enable titanium biomaterials to prevent and treat peri-implant infection.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Additive Manufacturing of Material Scaffolds for Bone Regeneration: Toward Application in the Clinics.Advanced functional materials · 2021Article
- Challenges of Co-Cr Alloy Additive Manufacturing Methods in Dentistry-The Current State of Knowledge (Systematic Review).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAlthough dental implants are widely and successfully used, failure rates because of bacterial colonization are still high. Adequate fabrication and sterilization techniques as well as proper management of infectious complications represent a constant field of interest and research. In this study, we focused our attention on implants with controlled porosity produced by Selective Laser Melting (SLM). The difficulty to sterilize porous implantable devices is well known and finding an adequate sterilization protocol represents a challenge worldwide. Before testing the biological and mechanical properties of porous implants, a preliminary study in order to determine a correct sterilization protocol must be conducted.Our aim was to establish a valid sterilization protocol for porous titanium alloy dental implants, as such protocols are not officially available yet.
methodsTwenty dental implants were fabricated from a titanium alloy by SLM. Ten of them were made using a 150W laser beam (porosity of 1% - group A) and the rest using a 75W laser beam (porosity of 23% - Group B), all of them with a non-defined internal structure. The implants were initially sterilized (5 from group A and 5 from group B, using dry heat - 180°C for 2 hours; the rest using steam sterilization - 121 °C for15 min) and then spent 18 hours in culture media with developing bacteria (Bacillus cereus (ATCC 11778), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 49444), Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212), Listeria monocytogenes (ATCC 19114), three Gram negative bacteria: Escherichia coli (ATCC 25922), Salmonella typhimurium (ATCC 14028) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC 27853). The first ten implants (5 from group A and 5 from group B) were then sterilized with dry heat and the others with steam. After sterilization, they were all placed in sterile culture media in order to observe if any bacterial growth were present.
resultsThe culture media was observed 18 hours after the sterilized implants were placed inside. No bacterial growth was observed.
conclusionsOur tests reached their aims of defining a protocol to sterilize porous implants. Future tests regarding biological and mechanical aspects of these implants may now follow.
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.