ArticleNanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Mechanical Versus Laser Debridement of SLA Titanium Implants: An In Vitro Morphological and Elemental Analysis of Debris Removal and Surface Preservation.
Article in Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
Peri-implantitis treatment is challenging because of the complex micro- and nanostructured topography of implant surfaces. No standard debridement protocol exists. In this study, we compared five debridement methods used on heavily contaminated titanium implants that were explanted due to peri-implantitis. Twenty-five explanted implants (five per group) were treated with a carbon fiber ultrasonic insert, a polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ultrasonic insert, a rotating titanium brush, an erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser, or an erbium-doped yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser. Five pristine implants were used as controls. Surface morphology was assessed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The Modified-Implant Debridement Visual Index (M-IDVI) was used to assess the debridement effectiveness according to SEM images. Surface elemental composition was assessed for atomic percentage (at. %) of carbon, titanium, oxygen and nitrogen using energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Mechanical methods were more effective at removing debris than laser methods. The titanium brush showed the lowest residual debris (2.33 ± 0.33) and the greatest reduction in surface carbon (Δ = -7.77 at. %). Surface titanium increased after debridement for all methods except for Er,Cr:YSGG (Δ = -5.9 at. %). Er:YAG best preserved SLA microtopography but exhibited a lower debridement efficacy (3.27 ± 0.83) than mechanical methods. No method resulted in a pristine surface.
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.