ArticleClinical oral implants research2022
Influence of different zirconia surface treatments on biofilm formation in vitro and in situ.
Article in Clinical oral implants research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Occlusal Adjustment and Subsequent Repolishing on the Translucency Parameter, Contact Angle, and Flexural Strength of Different Types of Glazed Monolithic Zirconia.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Impact of Laser Surface Modification on Zirconia Implants: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Evidence.Cureus · 2025Review
- Effect of laser on the decontamination ability and plaque reattachment on the surface of implant restoration materials.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Esthetic Zirconia Crowns in Children: A Comprehensive Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Enhanced Osteoconductivity of Zirconia Implants with One-Step Femtosecond Laser Treatment Through Morphological and Chemical Modifications.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Evaluation of early bacterial adhesion on CAD/CAM dental materials: an in situ study.Odontology · 2025Article
- Simulation of a Radio-Frequency Wave Based Bacterial Biofilm Detection Method in Dairy Processing Facilities.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Intensity of Biofilm Production by Oral Microflora and Its Adhesion on the Surface of Zirconia Produced in Additive and Subtractive Technology: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Characterization and morphological methods for oral biofilm visualization: where are we nowadays?AIMS microbiology · 2024Review
- Collagen membrane functionalized with magnesium oxide via room-temperature atomic layer deposition promotes osteopromotive and antimicrobial properties.Bioactive materials · 2023Article
- In Vitro Biofilm Formation on Zirconia Implant Surfaces Treated with Femtosecond and Nanosecond Lasers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Influence of Dental Titanium Implants with Different Surface Treatments Using Femtosecond and Nanosecond Lasers on Biofilm Formation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Influence of different zirconia surface treatments on biofilm formation in vitro and in situ.Clinical oral implants research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine whether the surface treatment of zirconia affects biofilm formation in an in vitro three-species biofilm model and in situ. MATERIAL AND
methodsZirconia surfaces considered for the transmucosal portion of a zirconia implant were compared with polished pure titanium grade 4 (Tp). Disks 13 mm in diameter of either polished (Zp), polished and heat-treated (Zpt), machined (Zm), machined and heat-treated (Zmt) and sandblasted, etched and heat-treated (Z14) zirconia were fabricated. Surface roughness and wettability of specimens was measured. Biofilm formation was evaluated by safranin staining and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) using a three-species model, and intraorally with 16 volunteers carrying oral splints in two independent experiments. Relative biofilm formation was compared with Kruskal-Wallis followed by Bonferroni post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsIn vitro biofilm formation with optical density values on Zp (0.14 ± 0.01), Zpt (0.14 ± 0.02), Zm (0.13 ± 0.01) and Zmt (0.13 ± 0.01) was significantly lower than on Tp (0.21 ± 0.05) and Z14 (0.20 ± 0.04) (p < .05). In situ biofilm formation was significantly higher on Z14 (0.56 ± 0.45) (p < .05), while no significant differences in optical density were observed among Zp (0.25 ± 0.20), Zm (0.36 ± 0.34) and Tp (0.28 ± 0.22). SEM analysis supported quantitative findings.
conclusionsIn the in vitro, three-species biofilm model differences in material and surface roughness affected biofilm formation. In situ biofilm formation was mainly affected by the surface roughness of the specimens. Polishing of zirconia is recommended to reduce biofilm formation, while heat treatment has no significant effect.
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.