ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of different decontamination protocols for reusing healing abutments: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Healing abutments are subjected to multiple cycles of reuse owing to the limited wear and tear experienced in function. The study undertaken focuses on drawing a comparative evaluation amongst two decontamination protocols for reusing healing abutments. Materials and method: A total of 85 healing abutments were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 contained 5 unused healing abutments. Group 2 contained 40 used healing abutments which were subjected to ultrasonic cleaning followed by autoclaving. Group 3 also contained 40 used healing abutments which were subjected to decontamination using NaOCl followed by ultrasonic cleaning followed by autoclaving. Healing abutments from all 3 groups were then individually stained with Phloxine B stain for a duration of 1 min and were individually observed under 10X Stereomicroscope for traces of staining which indicated residual contamination. Statistical analysis: ANOVA test and chi-square test were employed to statistically analyze the 3 groups using SPSS software. Result: The difference between the 3 groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001) with a chi-Square value of 85 %. Intergroup Comparison of mean rank showed statistically significant difference between the groups (Kruskal Wallis ANOVA, p < 0.001). Groups 1 and 3 did not display any evidence of staining with Phloxine B indicating no residual contamination, whereas all samples belonging to Group 2 displayed biological remnants as evidenced by the presence of staining. Conclusion: Cleaning of used healing abutments using Sodium hypochlorite followed by ultrasonic cleaning and autoclaving shows greater efficiency in ensuring complete decontamination of used healing abutments as compared to ultrasonic cleaning and autoclaving.
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.