ArticleCureus2024
The Effects of Different Hygiene Instrumentations on Titanium Implant Fixture Surfaces.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Feasibility of Ti-6Al-4V Alloys with Nanoporous and Nanotubular Surfaces for the Treatment of Femoral Defects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective Applying different hygiene tools for implant maintenance alters surface configurations, impacting bacterial adhesion on titanium implant surfaces and potentially leading to peri-implant diseases. This study aimed to assess the alterations in surface topography of titanium implant fixtures after utilizing hygiene instruments such as airflow; erbium, chromium-doped: yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser; and titanium brush, under scanning electron microscope (SEM) observation. Materials and methods We employed an experimental laboratory study design for this research, involving 20 MegaGen ST titanium implant fixtures (MegaGen Implant Co., Ltd., Seoul, Republic of Korea). These were classified into four groups: untreated/control fixtures (n=5); fixtures treated with airflow using sodium bicarbonate powder (n=5); fixtures treated with an Er, Cr: YSGG laser system at 1.5 W power and a laser pulse of 30 Hz (n=5); and fixtures treated with titanium brush operating between 300 to 1000 rpm (n=5). All fixtures were then rinsed with normal saline, fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde, and observed under SEM. Results In the SEM analysis, at 50x magnification, there were no differences between the fixtures. However, at 1000x, 2000x, and especially at 5000x magnification, the control group surfaces appeared to have no obvious change and were quite similar, with clearer surface details. The airflow group exhibited smoother surfaces with less complex and more organized structures. The laser group displayed a more irregular and haphazard structure, revealing a rougher topography. The titanium brush group showed the areas of the implant fixture surfaces appearing smoother and flatter. Conclusions In this SEM study, the titanium brush group yielded the smoothest surfaces and the most favorable overall outcomes, highlighting its efficacy.
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.