Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39176159›Full record

ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024

A comparison of four decontamination procedures in Reusing healing abutments: An in vitro study.

Narges Naghsh, Arezoo Hosseini, Ahmad Mogharehabed, Jaber Yaghini, Zahra Pezeshki, Niloofar Khaleghi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors.

Narges NaghshDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Arezoo HosseiniDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Ahmad MogharehabedDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Jaber YaghiniDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Zahra PezeshkiDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Niloofar KhaleghiDental Implants Research Center, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect of four decontamination methods on the level of residual contaminants in the re-usage of dental healing abutments. Materials and methods: In this experimental study, 50 used healing abutments were divided into five groups of ten as follows: 1. Control group: healing abutments were submerged in the ultrasonic device then autoclaved at 121 °C for 15 min; 2. Hypochlorite group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally immersed in 3 % hypochlorite for 20 min; 3. Chlorhexidine group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally treated with 12 % chlorhexidine; 4. Air polishing group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were subjected to air polishing; 5. Hydrogen peroxide group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally exposed to 3 % hydrogen peroxide. Then, all healing abutments were stained with a protein-specific stain, Phloxine B. Five photographs were taken of each healing abutment, with four capturing the body (shank)and one capturing the top. All images were analysed, to measure the stained (contaminated) areas of each sample. The obtained data were analysed using statistical software (significance set at p < 0.05). Results: The one-way ANOVA test indicated that the average percentage of contamination residues on the occlusal surface did not show a significant difference among the five groups: control: 5.5 ± 2.8, sodium hypochlorite: 4.9 ± 2.5, Chlorhexidine: 5.3 ± 2.5, air polisher: 3.1 ± 1.8 and Hydrogen peroxide: 4.8 ± 3.1. (p = 0.26). The average percentage of residual contamination on the body surfaces (shank part) was significantly lower in the air polisher (1.7 ± 1.1) and sodium hypochlorite (2.4 ± 1.1) groups compared to the other three groups (Control: 6.1 ± 2.3, Hydrogen peroxide: 4.6 ± 0.7, Chlorhexidine: 5.4 ± 2.4) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the use of sodium hypochlorite and air polishing, alongside autoclaving and ultrasonic cleaning, effectively reduced residual contamination on the body surfaces of healing abutments.

Indexed as

DecontaminationDental ImplantsEquipment ReuseSterilizationTitanium

Identifiers

PMID39176159
PMCPMC11338015

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.