Trial reportDental press journal of orthodontics2025
Comparative evaluation of orthodontic mini-implants hygiene protocols on subgingival bacterial load.
Trial report in Dental press journal of orthodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of four hygiene protocols for orthodontic mini-implants in reducing the subgingival bacterial load in the peri-implant sulcus.
methodsThirty-nine healthy individuals who had fifty-nine as-received mini-implants (20 men, 19 women, 20 to 42 years old) were randomly distributed into four groups of hygiene protocols: mechanical hygiene (M); mechanical hygiene associated with 0.12% digluconate chlorhexidine (CHX), 0.03% triclosan (T), or 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride (CP). All individuals were instructed regarding the hygiene procedures (T0). For bacterial load analysis, the gingival crevicular fluid from peri-implant sulcus was collected and submitted to quantitative real-time PCR at baseline (T1) and after 21 days following the hygiene protocols (T2). Wilcoxon test was applied for intergroup comparisons, whereas differences among groups at each time point were examined by Kruskal-Wallis test. The significance level was 5%.
resultsSignificant difference was detected between baseline and post-protocol times for bacterial total counts, comparing intergroup results, except for mechanical hygiene associated with cetylpyridinium chloride (M p=0.018, CHX p=0.028, T p=0.012, CP p=0.065). No significant difference was detected among the evaluated methods (p=0.181).
conclusionsThe mechanical hygiene of orthodontic mini-implants itself was capable to reduce total bacteria load and keep devices clean. Commonly, orthodontists prescribe, in addition to mechanical biofilm removal, some protocols combining adjunctive chemical agents as chlorhexidine. The authors believe that results have large importance for dental community, as they can protect patients from overtreatment.
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.