Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35009166›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Qualitative Evaluation of the Effects of Professional Oral Hygiene Instruments on Prosthetic Ceramic Surfaces.

Francesco Grande, Edoardo Mochi Zamperoli, Mario Cesare Pozzan, Fabio Tesini, Santo Catapano

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Francesco GrandeDepartment of Surgical Sciences, CIR Dental School, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6184-6654
Edoardo Mochi ZamperoliDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Luigi Borsari 46, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
Mario Cesare PozzanDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Luigi Borsari 46, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
Fabio TesiniDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Luigi Borsari 46, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.
Santo CatapanoDepartment of Prosthodontics, University of Ferrara, Via Luigi Borsari 46, 44121 Ferrara, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4548-8276
University of Ferrara · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During professional hygiene procedures, different instruments used may cause various damage to dental prostheses. Deplaquing and scaling with curettes and ultrasonic instruments may inadvertently increase the surface roughness of the material and the risk of future bacterial adhesion and/or also compromise the marginal seal of the prosthesis. Hence, the aim of this study was to assess the qualitative effects of two types of curettes and one piezoelectric instrument with a stainless-steel tip on three types of metal-free samples. After treating the samples with different instrumentations, they were analyzed using the scanning electron microscope and then underwent a qualitative microanalysis by using a spectroscopy machine. All the materials tested in this study have undergone significant changes of their superficial structure after instrumentation both with mechanical and manual instruments. Plastic curettes appeared to be less aggressive than the other instruments. Disilicate samples show a significantly lower degree of surface glazing erosion compared to the zirconia sample with all the instruments used.

Indexed as

CAD-CAM zirconiumlithium disilicateprofessional hygienequalitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID35009166
PMCPMC8746060
OpenAlexW4200500160

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.