ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Evaluation of residual contamination on reused healing abutments.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of sodium hypochlorite and ethyl alcohol and mechanical cleaning aid in cleaning used healing abutments: A cross-sectional study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- A comparison of four decontamination procedures in Reusing healing abutments: An in vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Could Dental Material Reuse Play a Significant Role in Preservation of Raw Materials, Water, Energy, and Costs? Microbiological Analysis of New versus Reused Healing Abutments: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study is to evaluate residual contamination of healing abutments sterilized by dealers of dental implant companies. MATERIAL AND
methodsHealing abutments collected from dealers of different implant companies were randomly numbered, and they were examined for visible deformation and contamination on the abutment surface, packaging errors, and presence of a sterilization indicator. The healing abutments were stained with a dye solution for contamination detection and evaluated by dividing into different regions. The presence of residual contamination was examined through photographic images taken from the healing abutments and the data obtained were recorded. Pearson's chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the relation between implant brands and contamination status. Significance was evaluated as p <0.05.
resultsVisible residual contamination was detected in approximately 31% of the healing abutments. After the staining procedure, in the visual assessment of the stained surfaces, residual contamination was found in at least one region of all healing abutments except one (n=176, 99.4%). The most intense staining was seen in the screw driver hole (n=172, 97.1%), body (n=113, 63.8%), occlusal (n=107, 60.4%), screw (n=79, 44.6%), and connector (n=72, 40.6%) regions, respectively. A significant relationship was found between the brands and the contamination status (p <0.05).
conclusionThe reuse of healing abutments is not suitable, as it does not ensure optimum cleaning and sterilization, and it is not possible to eliminate contaminants completely. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite the economic benefits of multiple use of healing abutments, disadvantages should be carefully evaluated by clinicians.
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.