Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38345466›Full record

SynthesisClinical and experimental dental research2024

Effectiveness of mechanical and chemical decontamination methods for the treatment of dental implant surfaces affected by peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Iain Hart, Christine Wells, Alexandra Tsigarida, Beatriz Bezerra

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Iain HartDepartment of Periodontology, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Christine WellsStatistical Methods and Data Analytics, UCLA Office of Advanced Research Computing, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Alexandra TsigaridaDepartment of Periodontology, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9599-1967
Beatriz BezerraSection of Periodontics, Division of Regenerative and Reconstructive Sciences, UCLA School of Dentistry, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1686-6450
Eastman Chemical Company (United States) · USData Management (Italy) · ITUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess which decontamination method(s) used for the debridement of titanium surfaces (disks and dental implants) contaminated with bacterial, most efficiently eliminate bacterial biofilms. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2022. The search strategy followed the PICOS format and included only in vitro studies completed on either dental implant or titanium disk samples. The assessed outcome variable consisted of the most effective method(s)-chemical or mechanical- removing bacterial biofilm from titanium surfaces. A meta-analysis was conducted, and data was summarized through single- and multi-level random effects model (p < .05).

resultsThe initial search resulted in 5260 articles after the removal of duplicates. After assessment by title, abstract, and full-text review, a total of 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Different decontamination methods were assessed, including both mechanical and chemical, with the most common method across studies being chlorhexidine (CHX). Significant heterogeneity was noted across the included studies. The meta-analyses only identified a significant difference in biofilm reduction when CHX treatment was compared against PBS. The remaining comparisons did not identify significant differences between the various decontamination methods.

conclusionsThe present results do not demonstrate that one method of decontamination is superior in eliminating bacterial biofilm from titanium disk and implant surfaces.

Indexed as

BiofilmsDecontaminationDental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisTitaniumChlorhexidineHumansSurface PropertiesChlorhexidineDental ImplantsTitaniumbiofilmdecontaminationdental implantsperiimplantitis

Identifiers

PMID38345466
PMCPMC10847712
OpenAlexW4391608180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.