ReviewCureus2023
A Review of Bacterial Colonization on Dental Implants With Various Hygiene Instruments.
Review in Cureus, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Peri-implant diseases can still develop despite oral hygiene practices being maintained. Consequently, regular debridement must be carried out to ensure the implant is sustained. This review evaluated bacterial colonization on implants following the use of different hygiene instruments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases for articles published from 2012 to 2022. A total of 19 full-text papers were selected. The number of bacteria colonized was most commonly evaluated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or by colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, crystal violet assays, plaque index, probing depth, bleeding on probing, turbidity test, and live-dead assays. Rubber cup polishing with an abrasive paste showed a significantly greater reduction in biofilm formation compared with air abrasion with glycine powder, while the air abrasion treatment was found to be more efficient than piezoelectric, carbon, and stainless steel scalers. Surface treatment with Er, Cr: YSGG laser, and Er: YAG laser resulted in statistically significant superior dental biofilm removal compared with titanium curettes and photodynamic therapy. Air abrasion, plastic curette, titanium curette, and ultrasonic scaler showed no significant differences in bacterial colonization, but air abrasion and plastic curette were safer for zirconia implant decontamination. Furthermore, the titanium brush showed better results in decontaminating the implant surface than the Er: YAG laser. Although no single instrument or method could be considered as offering a gold standard in treating peri-implant diseases, the use of air abrasion with glycine powder, laser therapies, rubber cup polishing with an abrasive paste, and a titanium brush had high levels of cleaning efficacy and acceptance by patients.
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.