In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2015-03, Vol.26 (3), p.314-319
• Main Authors: Sahrmann, Philipp, Ronay, Valerie, Hofer, Deborah, Attin, Thomas, Jung, Ronald E., Schmidlin, Patrick R.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: air flow; debridement; Debridement - instrumentation; Decontamination - instrumentation; Dental Implants; Dentistry; In Vitro Techniques; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; nonsurgical; peri-implantitis; Peri-Implantitis - prevention & control; Surface Properties
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12322

Objectives To assess the cleaning potential of three different instrumentation methods commonly used for implant surface decontamination in vitro, using a bone defect‐simulating model. Materials and methods Dental implants were stained with indelible ink and mounted in resin models, which represented standardized peri‐implantitis defects with different bone defect angulations (30, 60 and 90°). Cleaning procedures were performed by either an experienced dental hygienist or a 2nd‐year postgraduate student. The treatment was repeated 20 times for each instrumentation, that is, with a Gracey curette, an ultrasonic device and an air powder abrasive device (PAD) with glycine powder. After each run, implants were removed and images were taken to detect color remnants in order to measure planimetrically the cumulative uncleaned surface area. SEM images were taken to assess micromorphologic surface changes (magnification 10,000×). Results were tested for statistical differences using two‐way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction. Results The areas of uncleaned surfaces (%, mean ± standard deviations) for curettes, ultrasonic tips, and airflow accounted for 24.1 ± 4.8%, 18.5 ± 3.8%, and 11.3 ± 5.4%, respectively. These results were statistically significantly different (P