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 4 Statistical analysis of the cleaning method’s influence on the cleaning efficiency for method SW

Group 1–Group 2	M_Diff in %	d_Cohen	P	adj. P^a
FP–CP	− 0.0007		0.708	1
FP–UD	− 0.0025		0.600	1
FP–PL	− 0.0029		0.379	1
FP–SC	− 0.0070		0.246	1
FP–NC	− 0.0334	3.00	0.000	0.006
FP–LA	− 0.0858	1.26	0.000	0.006
CP–UD	− 0.0017		0.881	1
CP–PL	− 0.0021		0.614	1
CP–SC	− 0.0063		0.432	1
CP–NC	− 0.0326	3.36	0.001	0.024
CP–LA	− 0.0850	1.25	0.001	0.022
UD–PL	− 0.0004		0.722	1
UD–SC	− 0.0045		0.525	1
UD–NC	− 0.0309	2.81	0.002	0.040
UD–LA	− 0.0833	1.22	0.002	0.038
PL–SC	− 0.0041		0.779	1
PL–NC	− 0.0305		0.006	0.125
PL–LA	− 0.0829		0.006	0.118
SC–NC	− 0.0264		0.014	0.285
SC–LA	− 0.0788		0.013	0.270
NC–LA	− 0.0524		0.985	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 (dCohen) 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