ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
In Vitro Assessment of the Potential Effect of Vertical Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Thickness on Nonsurgical and Surgical Implant Surface Decontamination Methods.
Article in Clinical oral implants 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn vitro analysis of the influence of vertical peri-implant soft tissue thickness (STT) on nonsurgical and surgical implant surface decontamination efficacy. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 360 implants were dipped in indelible color to imitate biofilm contamination, distributed to 30°, 60° or 90° angulated bone defect models and in subgroups of 40 assigned to a decontamination method (CUR: curette; SOSC: soundscaler; APA: air powder abrasion). Of these, 20 were subjected to a simulated STT of 1.5 or 3.0 mm, of which 10 were cleaned within a nonsurgical (NST) or surgical (ST) treatment. Uncleaned implant surface was determined by photographs. Surface changes were assessed using scanning electron micrographs (SEM).
resultsThe overall cleaning efficacy decreased significantly (APA > SOSC > CUR, p < 0.001). Cleaning efficacy failed to show a significant difference between both STTs (STT1.5: 63.68%, STT3.0: 63.26%; p = 0.877). Within respective STT, cleaning efficacy differed depending on the method and the approach (STT1.5: CUR: p = 0.169, SOSC: p = 0.004, APA: p < 0.001; STT3.0: CUR p < 0.001, SOSC: p < 0.001, APA: p < 0.001; STT1.5/NST, CUR: 82.34%, SOSC: 74.98%, APA: 93.60%; STT1.5/ST, CUR: 79.85%, SOSC: 65.37%, APA: 50.12%; STT3.0/NST, CUR: 83.19%, SOSC: 70.85%, APA: 92.31%; STT3.0/ST, CUR: 80.00%, SOSC: 64.61%, APA: 46.49%). Analysis of variance revealed significant associations of color remnants with the approach, the method used, and the defect angulation (p < 0.001). SEMs showed less surface damages after use of APA.
conclusionsIn this In Vitro study no statistically significant influence of STT on the efficacy of surface decontamination could be detected. Treatment method, defect angle and approach were confirmed as predictors for the cleaning 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.