ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Evaluation of different implant surface decontamination techniques on bacterial load and surface integrity: an in-vitro study.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different decontamination techniques on titanium discs contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus biofilms focusing on bacterial removal efficacy and preservation of surface chemistry and topography.Two hundred twenty titanium discs, either contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus biofilms or kept sterile, were allocated to five decontamination protocols: titanium curette (TC), Erbium, Chromium: Yttrium-Scandium-Gallium-Garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) laser at 1.5 W (LI1) and 2 W (LI2), air-abrasion with glycine powder (AGP), and erythritol powder with chlorhexidine (AEP). Microbial reduction was assessed by colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), and scanning electron microscopy (SEM); surface alterations were evaluated using SEM, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and profilometry. Statistical analysis included ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and Pearson correlation tests. All methods significantly reduced CFU counts (p < 0.05), with LI2 achieving the highest log reduction. CLSM and SEM confirmed substantial reductions in viable biomass for LI2, TC, and AEP (p < 0.05), while AGP was least effective (p > 0.05). XPS analysis revealed that LI2 and AEP significantly increased surface oxygen (p < 0.05) and altered elemental composition with minimal damage. TC caused notable surface scratches, and AGP/AEP left powder residues. Only the TC group showed a significant increase in surface roughness (p < 0.05). None of the techniques completely removed biofilm; however, Er, Cr: YSGG laser at 2 W showed the most favorable balance between microbial reduction and surface preservation. Optimized laser parameters and chlorhexidine-enriched fine powders appear to be effective and safe options. Although titanium curettes achieved considerable biofilm removal, they induced significant alterations in surface morphology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41065909What 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.