Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322316›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022

Comparison of decontamination efficacy of two electrolyte cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices.

Holger Zipprich, Paul Weigl, Riccardo Di Gianfilippo, Larissa Steigmann, Dirk Henrich, Hom-Lay Wang, Markus Schlee, Christoph Ratka

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Holger Zipprich, 64342, Seeheim-Jugenheim, Germany.
Paul WeiglDepartment of Postgraduate Education, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, J. W. Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Riccardo Di GianfilippoDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North university Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. rdgianfi@umich.edu.
Larissa SteigmannDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North university Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Dirk HenrichDepartment of Trauma, Hand & Reconstructive Surgery, Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Hom-Lay WangDepartment of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North university Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Markus SchleeDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Christoph Ratka, 63477, Maintal, Germany.
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the in vitro decontamination efficacy of two electrolytic cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices. MATERIAL AND

methodsSixty sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) implants were incubated with 2 ml of human saliva and Tryptic Soy Broth solution under continuous shaking for 14 days. Implants were then randomly assigned to one untreated control group (n = 10) and 5 different decontamination modalities: air-abrasive powder (n = 10), diode laser (n = 10), plasma cleaning (n = 10), and two electrolytic test protocols using either potassium iodide (KI) (n = 10) or sodium formate (CHNaO

resultsAll disinfecting treatment modalities significantly reduced the stained area compared to the untreated control group for both measurement areas (p < 0.001). Among test interventions, electrolytic KI and CHNaO

conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present in vitro study, electrolytic decontamination with KI and CHNaO CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Complete bacterial elimination (residual bacteria < 1%) was achieved only for the electrolytic cleaning approaches, irrespectively of the favorable or unfavorable access to implant surface.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisAir Abrasion, DentalDecontaminationElectrolytesHumansLasers, SemiconductorMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningPowdersSurface PropertiesTitaniumDental ImplantsElectrolytesPowdersTitaniumAir abrasionDebridementDental implantsElectrolytesFluorescence microscopyLaser therapyPeri-implantitisPhotodynamic therapyPlasma ablation

Identifiers

PMID35322316
OpenAlexW4220801842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.