ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Factors Affecting the Efficacy of Airflowing in Cleaning Implant Surfaces in a Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment Simulation-A Laboratory Study.
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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Do Systemic Antibiotics Offer Benefits to the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analyses.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2025Pooled it
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate, in a simulation of surgical peri-implantitis treatment, the impact of type of handpiece, device settings, and instrumentation time on the efficacy of airflowing in cleaning the implant surface, depending on the type of bone defect and implant surface.
methodsTurned and modified surface implants (54 each) were coated with biofilm imitation and mounted on resin models replicating purely horizontal or circumferential intraosseous peri-implant defects (both 5 mm deep). Implants were instrumented with an airflowing device using a supra- or submucosal handpiece, with three settings: (a) power 5, 5 s (b) power 10, 5 s, and (c) power 5, 15 s per implant/defect sextant.
resultsThe amount of residual biofilm imitation was associated with defect configuration, type of handpiece, and device settings (p < 0.15); implant surface did not have an effect. In horizontal defects, with the supramucosal handpiece, only 3 of 54 implants showed > 5% residual biofilm imitation and 23 of 54 implants were completely clean; with the submucosal handpiece, 12 of 18 implants showed ≤ 5% residual biofilm imitation when used for 15 s/sextant, yet none were completely clean. In intraosseous defects, all implants presented ≤ 5% residual biofilm imitation and 10 of 18 implants were completely clean with the submucosal handpiece used for 15 s/sextant; the supramucosal handpiece was largely inefficacious.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this laboratory study, peri-implant bone defect configuration should dictate the choice of airflowing handpiece (i.e., for horizontal defects, the supramucosal handpiece; for intraosseous defects, the submucosal handpiece) and intrasurgical airflowing requires a prolonged instrumentation time, but not increased power.
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.