Use of Oral Irrigators in Peri‐Implant Maintenance Therapy: Clinical and Microbiological Outcomes Over a 7‐Year Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prospective studies investigating the influence of oral irrigators (OIs) as adjuncts to conventional oral hygiene (OH) procedures during periodontal/peri-implant maintenance therapy (PPMT) have not been previously reported. The aim of this study was to longitudinally evaluate the clinical and microbiological outcomes of regular compliers (RCs) under PPMT performing OH versus those using OIs adjunctive to OH over 7 years. METHODS: In a prospective PPMT program, 51 RCs were deemed eligible to participate in this study. Based on the use of OIs, two groups were formed-(1) OH (manual brushing/flossing + interdental brushes; n = 27); (2) OH + OIs (n = 24). Periodontal and peri-implant examinations and microbiological assessments were evaluated at two time points: T1 (first PPMT appointment after starting OIs use) and T2 (after 7 years under PPMT). RESULTS: The OH + OIs group exhibited better peri-implant and periodontal clinical parameters, with lower total bacterial and T. denticola and F. nucleatum counts at peri-implant and periodontal sites compared to the OH group. Additionally, the OH + OIs group showed significantly greater reductions in plaque index from T1 to T2, demonstrating an additional positive effect of OIs. CONCLUSIONS: PPMT resulted in clinical and microbiological benefits among RCs in the long term. However, the adjunctive use of OIs led to significantly better peri-implant and periodontal clinical parameters, along with lower total bacterial, T. denticola, and F. nucleatum counts compared to OH alone.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".