ArticleClinical implant dentistry and related research2025
The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility.
Article in Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2025. 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.
- Mucositis and Peri-Implant Disease Treatment with Chitosan and Titanium Brushes: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo in vitro investigate the effect of different implant surface decontamination methods and treatment storing conditions on implant surface morphology and cell viability. MATERIALS AND
methodsTitanium disks with a sand-blasted and acid-etched surface (Promote, PRO) were treated with diamond polishing brushes (BRUSH), nickel-titanium brushes (NITI), or phenol and sulfuric acid-gel (GEL). The disks were stored in saline (-S) or left exposed to air overnight (-A). Untreated (PRO) and machined (MACHINED) disks were used as controls. GEL samples were treated for the 60 s, while the operative time was recorded for BRUSH and NITI. The samples were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM), surface roughness measurements, and cell viability (SaOS-2 cells, 7 days) assessment.
resultsThe operative time was shorter for NITI than for BRUSH (p = 0.017). The original surface morphology (PRO) was not altered in the GEL group, in contrast with what was observed for BRUSH and NITI. The type of storage did not influence the surface morphology. No significant differences in Sa and Sz were observed among the groups, except for MACHINED, which presented lower Sa values (p < 0.05). Cells were able to proliferate on all surfaces. NITI-S showed significantly higher cell viability compared to all groups (p ≤ 0.001), except for NITI-A and MACHINED. Among the treated groups, only one additional significant difference was found, as NITI-A performed better than GEL-S.
conclusionsNone of the investigated protocols compromised the cytocompatibility of the titanium dental implant surface. The best results were registered in the NITI group when the samples were stored in saline. Future studies should confirm the effectiveness of the proposed methods in removing bacterial biofilm from contaminated implant surfaces.
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.