ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
In vitro evaluation of different protective techniques to reduce titanium particle contamination during implantoplasty.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Release of Titanium Particles After Implantoplasty in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Local and Systemic Implications-An Integrative Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Novel iMPACT Tool and Quadrant Protocol for Peri-Implantitis: Surface Refinement and Re-Osseointegration Validated by SEM/EDS and Long-Term Clinical Case Reports.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOur aim is to study titanium remains in a bone model during standardized implantoplasty under different isolation and protective modalities. MATERIAL AND
methodsForty implants were placed in artificial spongy bone blocks mimicking a horizontal bone loss and implant neck protrusion of 5 mm. Samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10), which were treated as follows: rubber dam (A), a dental adhesive paste (B), bone wax (C), and an unprotected positive control (D). Implantoplasty was performed using carbide and diamond burs under strict water cooling and standardized suction. After removal of the respective isolation materials, the bone blocks were thoroughly rinsed with tap water for 3 min and titanium chips were collected using a filter integrated in the model. The filter paper was removed and dissolved in 37% hydrochloric acid for 2 h at 120 °C and the titanium remnants were quantified using atomic absorption spectrometry.
resultsNone of the test groups were able to completely prevent titanium particle contamination. Rubber dam (691 ± 249 µg) and bone wax (516 ± 157 µg) were found to be significantly more protective than the positive control (2313 ± 747 µg) (p < 0.001) with respect to the amount of titanium particles that remained in the bone model after implantoplasty. The adhesive paste group (1863.5 ± 538 µg) was not significantly different from the positive control (p = 0.19).
conclusionsDespite some limitations of the present study, titanium particles resulting from a standardized implantoplasty can be assumed to be significantly reduced when the tissues/bone were protected with rubber dam and bone wax, or a combination, depending on individual accessibility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Tissue protective measures to reduce or avoid particle contamination during implantoplasty is possible and should be considered and further clinically assessed to avoid iatrogenic inflammatory reactions.
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.