| Title |
Clinical and laboratory evaluation of the effects of different treatment modalities on titanium healing caps: a randomized, controlled clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-017-2287-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kristina Emily Schmidt, Thorsten Mathias Auschill, Christian Heumann, Roland Frankenberger, Sigrun Eick, Anton Sculean, Nicole Birgit Arweiler |
| Abstract |
The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of treatment modalities on titanium surface characteristics and surrounding tissues. Eighteen participants each had four titanium healing caps (HC) attached to four newly inserted implants. After healing, each HC was randomly assigned to either (1) titanium curettes (TC), (2) stainless steel ultrasonic tip (PS), (3) erythritol air-polishing powder (EP), or (4) only rubber cup polishing (CON). Probing depths (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), matrix metalloproteinase 8 (MMP-8), and periopathogens were recorded before and 3 months following instrumentation. After final assessments, HCs were removed, cleaned, and subjected to (a) bacterial colonization (Streptococcus gordonii, 24 h; mixed culture, 24 h) and (b) gingival fibroblasts (5 days). HC surfaces were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). No significant differences between the groups were evident before or after instrumentation for PD and BOP (except TC showed a significant decrease in PD; p = 0.049). MMP-8 levels and bacterial loads were always very low. MMP-8 decreased further after instrumentation, while bacteria levels showed no change. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were evident in bacterial colonization or fibroblast attachment. A comparison of the overall mean SEM surface roughness scores showed a significant difference between all groups (p < 0.0001) with the lowest roughness after EP. All treatments performed yielded comparable outcomes and may be implemented safely. Clinicians may fear implant surface damage, but all instrumentation types are safe and non-damaging. They can be implemented as needed upon considering the presence of staining and soft and hard deposits. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 114 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 18 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 25 | 22% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 40% |
| Unspecified | 18 | 16% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 35 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,458,307
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#1,038
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,698
of 442,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#24
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,076 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.