Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34713992›Full record

ReviewJournal of periodontal & implant science2021

The effects of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surfaces: a systematic review.

Nathan Chiang Ping Tan, Ahsen Khan, Elsa Antunes, Catherine M Miller, Dileep Sharma

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan Chiang Ping TanCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Smithfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5572-5207
Ahsen KhanCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Smithfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8871-2237
Elsa AntunesCollege of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Smithfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4246-7824
Catherine M MillerCollege of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Smithfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6071-5102
Dileep SharmaCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Smithfield, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4463-1480
James Cook University · AUAustralian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine · AU

Funding

Australian Dental Research FoundationCollege of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePeri-implantitis therapy and implant maintenance are fundamental practices to enhance the longevity of zirconia implants. However, the use of physical decontamination methods, including hand instruments, polishing devices, ultrasonic scalers, and laser systems, might damage the implant surfaces. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surfaces.

methodsA systematic search was conducted using 5 electronic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Hand searching of the OpenGrey database, reference lists, and 6 selected dental journals was also performed to identify relevant studies satisfying the eligibility criteria.

resultsOverall, 1049 unique studies were identified, of which 11 studies were deemed suitable for final review. Air-abrasive devices with glycine powder, prophylaxis cups, and ultrasonic scalers with non-metal tips were found to cause minimal to no damage to implant-grade zirconia surfaces. However, hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers with metal tips have the potential to cause major damage to zirconia surfaces. In terms of laser systems, diode lasers appear to be the most promising, as no surface alterations were reported following their use.

conclusionAir-abrasive devices and prophylaxis cups are safe for zirconia implant decontamination due to preservation of the implant surface integrity. In contrast, hand instruments and ultrasonic scalers with metal tips should be used with caution. Recommendations for the use of laser systems could not be fully established due to significant heterogeneity among included studies, but diode lasers may be the best-suited system. Further research-specifically, randomised controlled trials-would further confirm the effects of physical decontamination methods in a clinical setting.

Indexed as

DecontaminationDental implantsDental instrumentsSurface propertiesZirconium

Identifiers

PMID34713992
PMCPMC8558004
OpenAlexW3169767846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.