ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Inflammation Level and a Microbiological Analysis of the Anophthalmic Cavities of Unilateral Ocular Prosthesis Users: A Blind, Randomized Observational Study.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbiological evaluation of conjunctival anopthalmic flora after using digital 3D-printed ocular prosthesis compared to conventional one: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Laser-ablated gold nanoparticles: a novel approach to antimicrobial artificial eyes.Folia microbiologica · 2026Article
- Tear secretion is preserved while the area of meibomian glands is reduced in patients with prosthetic eyes, contributing to the symptoms of dry eye.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Irritation and biofilm adhesion are complaints associated with ocular prosthesis use. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of prosthesis repolishing on several conditions of anophthalmic volunteers. Participants were divided into two groups: intervention (IG, n = 10) and nonintervention (NIG, n = 6) groups. The anophthalmic cavity, contralateral eye, and prosthesis surface were evaluated at initial, day 15, and day 30 after repolishing. Microbiological analysis (colony-forming units), exfoliative cytology (conjunctiva inflammatory cells), sensory analysis (quantitative mechanical sensory test), tear production (Schirmer’s test), and conjunctival inflammation (clinical evaluation) were performed. Nonparametric tests were used to compare groups in the initial period and to analyze periods for the IG (p < 0.05). More microorganisms were formed in the anophthalmic socket and prosthesis than in the contralateral eye in the initial period. For IG, the anophthalmic cavity exhibited more microorganisms and inflammatory clinical signs in the initial period than at 15 and 30 after repolishing. The prosthesis showed greater accumulations of total bacteria and Candida albicans in the initial period than at 15 and 30 days after repolishing. The anophthalmic cavity had more palpebral inflammation than the contralateral eye. In conclusion, repolishing reduced the number of microorganisms and inflammatory signs over time.
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.