ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants on Impression Materials.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The influence of chlorogenic acid disinfection on the oral microbiota of alginate impressions.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection Protocols for Dental Impressions in Prosthodontics.Cureus · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The disinfection of dental impression materials is a cornerstone of infection control in dental practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two disinfectants, sodium hypochlorite and iodophor, on alginate and silicone impression materials, which are prone to microbial contamination. Methods The study was structured into two main groups based on the impression material: Group I (alginate) and Group II (addition silicone), each further subdivided into two subgroups for disinfection with sodium hypochlorite and iodophor. For each subgroup, initial microbial swabs were taken before any treatment, followed by a second swab after rinsing and a final swab after disinfection. The mean colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean were calculated for each stage of treatment. Results Prior to disinfection, Group I had a mean CFU count of 2,529.40, while Group II had a lower mean CFU of 1,417.40. After rinsing, there was a significant decrease in CFUs in both groups, with Group I at 1,337.10 and Group II at 415.10. Post-disinfection, Group I showed a mean CFU count of 73.00 for sodium hypochlorite and 0.00 for iodophor. Similarly, Group II achieved a CFU reduction of 99.00 with sodium hypochlorite and 0.00 with iodophor, demonstrating a marked reduction in microbial presence. Conclusion Iodophor was exceptionally effective in disinfecting both alginate and silicone impression materials, eliminating all detectable CFUs. Sodium hypochlorite also significantly reduced microbial counts but was not as effective as iodophor. Rinsing prior to disinfection was instrumental in reducing the microbial load, underscoring its importance in the disinfection protocol.
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.