ArticleClinical oral implants research2022
In vitro effect of different implant decontamination methods in three intraosseous defect configurations.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Connective Tissue Graft as an Adjunct to Guided Bone Regeneration in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Dual-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2026Trial
- Implantoplasty vs. Rotating Titanium Brushes in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A 1-Year Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Trial
- Peri-implantitis reconstructive treatment implementing a titanium brush: 5-year extension results from a randomized clinical trial.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- Repassivation of Titanium Surface with Different Disinfectants After Implantoplasty: Effects on Corrosion, Ion Release, Cytotoxicity and Bacterial Behaviour-An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Factors Affecting the Efficacy of Airflowing in Cleaning Implant Surfaces in a Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment Simulation-A Laboratory Study.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- In Vitro Assessment of the Potential Effect of Vertical Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Thickness on Nonsurgical and Surgical Implant Surface Decontamination Methods.Clinical oral implants research · 2025Article
- In-vitro simulation methods for mechanical plaque removal: a systematic scoping review of current techniques and future directions.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Article
- Periodontal Endoscopy for Mechanical Debridement in the Non-Surgical Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comprehensive treatment protocol for peri-implantitis: an up-to date narrative review of the literature.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2024Review
- Anatomical three-dimensional model with peri-implant defect for in vitro assessment of dental implant decontamination.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2024Article
- Residual bone level as a prognostic factor in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2024Review
- Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry · 2024Article
- In-Vitro Biofilm Removal Efficacy Using Water Jet in Combination with Cold Plasma Technology on Dental Titanium Implants.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- In vitro effect of different implant decontamination methods in three intraosseous defect configurations.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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro investigation was aimed to evaluate the cleaning ability of four mechanical devices designed for decontaminating implant surfaces. MATERIAL AND
methodsNinety-six implants were coated with permanent ink and inserted into 3D-printed resin blocks simulating three different intraosseous defect configurations (types Ib, Ic, and Ie). The four tested mechanical decontamination devices (air-polishing with glycine powder, rotating titanium brush, polyetheretherketone [PEEK]-coated ultrasonic tip, and stainless steel ultrasonic tip) were randomly applied onto the 5 mm exposed implant surface. Standardized photographs were taken from a frontal perspective and with a 30° angle coronally and apically to the implant axis. The area with remnant ink on the implant surface was calculated.
resultsAlthough none of the groups achieved complete ink removal, air-polishing with glycine and titanium brushes demonstrated a higher cleaning ability when compared with ultrasonic devices either with standard or PEEK tips for all three defect configurations. For the three tested models, the best cleaning ability in all groups was shown on implant surfaces without facing an intraosseous wall. Titanium brush was the most effective when the intraosseous walls existed. Cleaning effectiveness diminished in the threads located in the apical third, especially when using air-polishing and ultrasonic devices.
conclusionsTitanium brushes and air-polishing devices were more effective in removing artificial biofilm using this in vitro model, although their effectiveness was influenced by the presence of the intrabony component.
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.