ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2022
An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the antibacterial properties of Resin cements with and without the addition of nanoparticles: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Attenuation of orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption by using low-intensity pulsed ultrasound as a therapeutic modality- a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of the Influence of Er:YAG Laser Parameters on the Effectiveness of Growth Inhibition ofJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Comparison of Photodynamic Therapy and Air Abrasion for Implant Surface Decontamination with Laser Treatment in Terms of Efficacy and Implant Surface Alterations: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- Up regulation of serum L fucose glycoprotein as a diagnostic biomarker for dysplasia in oral sub mucous fibrosis patients.Heliyon · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Periodontal and peri-implant disorders are etiologically linked to bacterial biofilms. The researchers wanted to see how well the erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser removed bacterial biofilms along with attached epithelial cells (EC), gingival fibroblasts (GF), in addition to osteoblast-like cells (OC) dentin along with titanium surfaces compared to previous therapy methods. Methodology: 3.5 days were spent growing bacterial biofilms on standardized dentin and also titanium samplings using a sand-blasted along with the acid-etched surface. Following that, the specimens were positioned into pockets that had been formed artificially. The following approaches were used to remove biofilm: (1) Er:YAG, (2) photodynamic therapy (PDT), and (3) curette (CUR) along with supplementary PDT (CUR/PDT). The remaining biofilms' colony forming units (CFUs) were determined, as well as the attachment of EC, GF, in addition to OC. Analysis of variance with a posthoc least significant difference was utilized in the statistical analysis. Results: When compared to untreated dentin and titanium surfaces, all therapy strategies reduced total CFUs in statistically significant biofilms ( Conclusion: The usage of Er:YAG laser to ablate subgingival biofilms and, specifically, to decontaminate titanium implant surfaces appears to be a promising strategy that needs further research.
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.