Efficacy of Instruments for Professional Oral Hygiene on Dental Implants: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professional oral hygiene is fundamental to prevent peri-implant disease. Appropriate instruments should be used in patients with restorations supported by dental implants: they should be effective in deposits removal without damaging the implant components surface. The aim of the present study is to investigate and summarize the results regarding the efficacy of oral hygiene techniques described in the literature in the last 10 years in patients rehabilitated with dental implants not affected by perimplantitis. The present systematic review was conducted according to guidelines reported in the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The focused question was: “Which are the most effective instruments for professional oral hygiene on implants not affected by perimplantitis?”. The initial database search yielded a total of 934 entries found in PubMed®/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. After full text review and application of the eligibility criteria, the final selection consisted of 19 articles. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Curette, scalers and air polishing were the devices most frequently investigated in the included studies. In particular, glycine powder air polishing appeared to be significantly effective in reducing peri-implant inflammation and plaque around implants. The application of the more recent erythritol powder air polishing also yielded good clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to improve the knowledge on the topic in order to develop standardized protocols and understand the specific indications for different types of implant-supported rehabilitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".