ArticleClinical oral implants research2025
Antibacterial Effect of Combined Electrolytic and Chemical Decontamination Methods on Dental Implant Surfaces: In Vitro 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.
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.
- Advances in antibiofilm strategies for medical implant-associated infections: emerging technologies and translational challenges.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
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
objectivesTo evaluate the combined effect of direct electrical current and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) for decontaminating titanium implant surfaces, using a validated in vitro oral multispecies biofilm model. MATERIAL AND
methodsContaminated implant surfaces were tested using an electrochemical cell consisting of a three-electrode system immersed in a KI-AL electrolyte, the biofilm-coated implant being the working electrode, a platinum mesh the counter electrode, and an Ag/AgCl electrode the reference. Direct electrical currents (DC) were applied at two voltage levels (-3 V and-0.75 V) for 5 min, followed by a 1-min rinse in 0.12% CHX. The results were compared to 0.12% CHX alone. Untreated contaminated implants served as negative controls. The antibiofilm effect was evaluated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction with propidium monoazide and by scanning electron microscopy in three different implant zones (threads, valleys and transmucosal machined neck). The area of residual bacteria was also calculated by image analysis.
resultsThe combined treatment significantly reduced the viable total bacterial counts ([-3 V + CHX] = 4.6 and [-0.75 V + CHX] = 4.9 logarithm colony forming units-LogCFU/mL), compared to the negative control group (6.1 LogCFU/mL) and 0.12% CHX alone (6.3 LogCFU/mL). The area of residual bacteria was also significantly reduced, removing over 95% of the biofilm in combined treatment groups, with slightly higher efficiency at -3 V. Electrolytic cleaning was able to reach all implant zones and no significant differences were found between [-3 V + CHX] and [-0.75 V + CHX] for any parameter.
conclusionThe proposed combined treatments were more effective in reducing the vitality of multispecies biofilms on implant surfaces compared to CHX alone.
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.