Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32975703›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021

Comparison of the effects of air-powder abrasion, chemical decontamination, or their combination in open-flap surface decontamination of implants failed for peri-implantitis: an ex vivo study.

Nicola Pranno, Maria Paola Cristalli, Fabio Mengoni, Ilaria Sauzullo, Susanna Annibali, Antonella Polimeni, Gerardo La Monaca

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Role of decontamination treatment for implant surface in the treatment of peri-implantitis.Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicola PrannoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Maria Paola CristalliDepartment of Biotechnologies and Medical Surgical Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 6. Caserta St., 00161, Rome, Italy. mariapaola.cristalli@uniroma1.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-7030
Fabio MengoniDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Ilaria SauzulloDepartment of Public Health and Infectious Diseases, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Susanna AnnibaliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Antonella PolimeniDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Gerardo La MonacaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare, using an ex vivo model, the biofilm removal of three surface decontamination methods following surgical exposure of implants failed for severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study design was a single-blind, randomized, controlled, ex vivo investigation with intra-subject control. Study participants were 20 consecutive patients with at least 4 hopeless implants, in function for >12 months and with progressive bone loss exceeding 50%, which had to be explanted. Implants of each patient were randomly assigned to the untreated control group or one of the three decontamination procedures: mechanical debridement with air-powder abrasion, chemical decontamination with hydrogen peroxide and chlorhexidine gluconate, or combined mechanical-chemical decontamination. Following surgical exposure, implants selected as control were retrieved, and afterwards, test implants were decontaminated according to allocation and carefully explanted with a removal kit. Microbiological analysis was expressed in colony-forming-units (CFU/ml).

resultsA statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) in the concentrations of CFU/ml was found between implants treated with mechanical debridement (531.58 ± 372.07) or combined mechanical-chemical decontamination (954.05 ± 2219.31) and implants untreated (37,800.00 ± 46,837.05) or treated with chemical decontamination alone (29,650.00 ± 42,596.20). No statistically significant difference (p = 1.000) was found between mechanical debridement used alone or supplemented with chemical decontamination. Microbiological analyses identified 21 microbial species, without significant differences between control and treatment groups.

conclusionsBacterial biofilm removal from infected implant surfaces was significantly superior for mechanical debridement than chemical decontamination. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The present is the only ex vivo study based on decontamination methods for removing actual and mature biofilm from infected implant surfaces in patients with peri-implantitis.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisDecontaminationHumansPowdersSingle-Blind MethodDental ImplantsPowdersAir-powder abrasionChemical decontaminationPeri-implantitis

Identifiers

PMID32975703
PMCPMC8060238
OpenAlexW3088161036

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.