Influence of exposure of customized dental implant abutments to different cleaning procedures: an in vitro study using AI-assisted SEM/EDS analysis

International Journal of Implant Dentistry

Table 3 Statistical analysis of the cleaning method’s influence on the cleaning efficiency for method ML

Group 1–Goup 2	M_Diff in %	d_Cohen	P	adj. P^a
FP–CP	− 0.0024		0.421	1
FP–PL	− 0.0019		0.379	1
FP–UD	− 0.0079		0.089	1
FP–SC	− 0.0108		0.033	0.693
FP–NC	− 0.0616	4.92	0.000	0.001
FP–LA	− 0.1122	1.57	0.000	0.000
CP–PL	0.0006		0.940	1
CP–UD	− 0.0055		0.369	1
CP–SC	− 0.0084		0.184	1
CP–NC	− 0.0591	4.60	0.001	0.015
CP–LA	− 0.1098	1.54	0.000	0.010
PL–UD	− 0.0061		0.411	1
PL–SC	− 0.0089		0.210	1
PL–NC	− 0.0597	4.75	0.001	0.020
PL–LA	− 0.1103	1.55	0.001	0.013
UD–SC	− 0.0029		0.667	1
UD–NC	− 0.0536		0.013	0.270
UD–LA	− 0.1043		0.009	0.196
SC–NC	− 0.0508		0.040	0.832
SC–LA	− 0.1014		0.030	0.631
NC–LA	− 0.0506		0.911	1

Decimals are rounded. Kruskal–Wallis test was followed by post hoc tests (a = P values were corrected according to Bonferroni correction with a factor of 21 for multiple tests). The significance level was 0.05. The bold type indicates statistically significant differences. The effect size (d_Cohen) was calculated from the mean difference and the pooled standard deviations. NC = not cleaned; CP = cleaning protocol according to Canullo; FP = cleaning protocol according to FINEVO CLEANING SYSTEM; SC = steam cleaning; PL = low-pressure plasma cleaning; UD = ultrasonic cleaning and disinfection; LA = laboratory group with unknown cleaning methods