Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40772745›Full record

ArticleClinical oral implants research2025

Antibacterial Effect of Combined Electrolytic and Chemical Decontamination Methods on Dental Implant Surfaces: In Vitro Study.

Verónica Odeh, Leire Virto, Enrique Garcia-Quismondo, David Herrera, Jesús Palma, Mariano Sanz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Verónica OdehEtiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases (ETEP), research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-3376-4173
Leire VirtoEtiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases (ETEP), research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3376-5232
Enrique Garcia-QuismondoElectrochemical Processes Unit, IMDEA Energy, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7939-9573
David HerreraEtiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases (ETEP), research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5554-2777
Jesús PalmaElectrochemical Processes Unit, IMDEA Energy, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1022-0165
Mariano SanzEtiology and Therapy of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases (ETEP), research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6293-5755

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsChlorhexidineDecontaminationDental ImplantsElectrolysisIn Vitro TechniquesMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSurface PropertiesTitaniumAnti-Bacterial AgentsChlorhexidinechlorhexidine gluconateDental ImplantsTitaniumantisepticsbiofilmchlorhexidinedental implantelectrochemicalperi‐implantitis

Identifiers

PMID40772745
PMCPMC12598905

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.