ArticleBMC oral health2026
Implant cleaning performance of powder abrasive devices: an in-vitro study on the non-surgical and surgical approach.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo assess the cleaning potential of different powder abrasive devices (PADs) employing glycine powder in different peri-implant defect models, simulating the non-surgical and surgical approach.
methods120 implants were stained with insoluble ink and mounted in models with circular steep and horizontal defects with and without simulated mucosa. Debridement was performed with three different commercially available PADs (1-3) for 120 s, either with a hand piece for the surgical or the nozzle for the non-surgical approach. Each treatment mode was performed on ten implants, respectively. Photos from each implant were taken under UV-A light activation and residually stained areas planimetrically assessed. Cleaning was tested for intergroup differences by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Potential changes in the micro-morphology were investigated by scanning electron microscopy.
resultsTaken all experiments together, device I performed significantly better than the others (p < 0.05). For the non-surgical approach, no significant overall difference was found. Horizontal defects were cleaned better than steep defects in all treatment-groups (p < 0.001). For the surgical approach, there was a significant overall difference between group I and III (p = 0.031). For both defect types, significant inter-group differences were found except for group II and III in the horizontal defect (p < 0.05). No configuration showed complete cleaning. Apically facing thread surfaces were found to be the most difficult to clean.
conclusion(1) Different devices showed considerably different cleaning performances. Generally, stand-alone devices tended to perform better than powder chambers mounted on a handpiece. (2) Throughout the settings, steep defects are more difficult to clean.
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.