ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of surface roughness of titanium disks subjected to simulated oral conditions.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the impact of common dental hygiene practices, including brushing with fluoridated toothpaste, on titanium implant surfaces with varying degrees of roughness, both in the presence and absence of citric acid.
methodsTitanium (Ti) disks with varying surface roughness (smooth and moderately rough, n = 80) were divided into two groups. Different treatments were applied to each group: control (no treatment, SC, RC), citric acid exposure (S1, R1), citric acid exposure followed by brushing (S2, R2), and citric acid exposure followed by brushing with fluoridated toothpaste (S3, R3). Surface roughness (Ra) was measured using a stylus profilometer and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to examine surface morphology and potential damage. ANOVA associated with the Tukey's tests were used to compare Ra between the groups.
resultsSmooth Ti surfaces exhibited minimal changes in roughness following various treatments, including citric acid exposure, brushing, and fluoride treatment, with % of change in Ra ranging from 0.43 to 7.1% compared to the control. However, SEM analysis revealed surface alterations such as chipping and scratching. In contrast, rough Ti surfaces showed significant increases in roughness after treatments, with the combination of citric acid and brushing (R1 and R2) causing the most pronounced effects with a 48.8% change in Ra compared to the control. Fluoride treatment may have mitigated these effects to some extent.
conclusionsThe common dental hygiene practices, such as brushing with fluoridated toothpaste and exposure to acidic substances, can significantly impact the surface topography of Ti implants, particularly those with rough surfaces.
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.