ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2022
Reuse of healing abutments: Ethical, biological and professional training implications.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Could Dental Material Reuse Play a Significant Role in Preservation of Raw Materials, Water, Energy, and Costs? Microbiological Analysis of New versus Reused Healing Abutments: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim was to estimate the prevalence of reuse of healing abutments, the methods used in disinfection and to analyze the reasons that lead to the reuse of these components by professionals who work in rehabilitation with dental implants. Material and Methods: For this, an online data collection was carried out through a questionnaire developed in Google Forms. This questionnaire was applied to 284 specialists in implantology, randomized, of the 1,147 registered in the Regional Council of Dentistry of Rio Grande do Sul. The questionnaire was divided into three parts: the first containing the Free and Informed Consent Form; the second referring to the correspondents' demographic data; and the third part with information on reuse, disinfection and sterilization routines used, risk perception and information from manufacturers. To estimate the prevalence in the reuse of healing abutments by implantologists, the frequency of responses was used. Results: The results showed that almost all implantologists reuse healing abutments (98.1%). The main reasons for reuse were cost (71.2%) and practicality (26%). Regarding the limitations, 53.3% do not see limitations in its reuse, 20% associate it with increased roughness, 17.8% with the accumulation of organic matter and 8.9% with cross-infection as limitations for reuse. Already 95.3% did not receive any guidance from manufacturers on the reuse of these components. Enzymatic detergent and ultrasonic bath was the most used cleaning method (50.7%) followed by ultrasonic bath (23.3%). Autoclave was the method used for sterilization for all respondents. Conclusions: The reuse of healing abutments is a practice adopted by implantologists in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil and most professionals do not observe limitations in this practice since these components are used repeatedly. Decontamination with enzymatic detergent and an ultrasonic bath is the most commonly used procedure associated with autoclave sterilization.
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.