In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods

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 represente...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
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
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3
container_end_page 319
container_issue 3
container_start_page 314
container_title Clinical oral implants research
container_volume 26
creator Sahrmann, Philipp
Ronay, Valerie
Hofer, Deborah
Attin, Thomas
Jung, Ronald E.
Schmidlin, Patrick R.
description 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 
doi_str_mv 10.1111/clr.12322
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1652458818</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1652458818</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EgvI48AdQjnAIXdu1Ex9RBaWoBcRDHC3H2YAhaYqd8vj3GFq4sZeRRt-MVkPIPoVjGq9va39MGWdsjfSoBEhBAF0nPVAg0oxKukW2Q3gGAKlytUm22IBnHITskYvxLHlznW8TW6OZudljMm87nHXO1ElbJd2TR0xKV1Xoo5u4Zl6bqCUW3pXYfHsNdk9tGXbJRmXqgHsr3SH3Z6d3w_N0cjUaD08mqR0wxVKRMW5pAVJKpQDUgBuwWUFLlHmZGxSFADDcCpspiZEockltRZnNUKGyfIccLnvnvn1dYOh044LFOv6F7SJoKgUbiDyneUSPlqj1bQgeKz33rjH-U1PQ39PpOJ3-mS6yB6vaRdFg-Uf-bhWB_hJ4dzV-_t-kh5Ob38p0mXChw4-_hPEvWmY8E_rhcqRHl9Pp9cPtVN_yL9G-hvM</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1652458818</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Sahrmann, Philipp ; Ronay, Valerie ; Hofer, Deborah ; Attin, Thomas ; Jung, Ronald E. ; Schmidlin, Patrick R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sahrmann, Philipp ; Ronay, Valerie ; Hofer, Deborah ; Attin, Thomas ; Jung, Ronald E. ; Schmidlin, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><description>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 &lt; 0.0001). The cleaning potential of the airflow device increased with wider defects. SEM evaluation displayed distinct surface alterations after instrumentation with steel tips, whereas glycine powder instrumentation had only a minute effect on the surface topography. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present in vitro model, airflow devices using glycine powders seem to constitute an efficient therapeutic option for the debridement of implants in peri‐implantitis defects. Still, some uncleaned areas remained. In wide defects, differences between instruments are more accentuated.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.12322</identifier><identifier>PMID: 24373056</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>air flow ; debridement ; Debridement - instrumentation ; Decontamination - instrumentation ; Dental Implants ; Dentistry ; In Vitro Techniques ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; nonsurgical ; peri-implantitis ; Peri-Implantitis - prevention &amp; control ; Surface Properties</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2015-03, Vol.26 (3), p.314-319</ispartof><rights>2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2013 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24373056$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sahrmann, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ronay, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofer, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Attin, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Ronald E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidlin, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><title>In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><description>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 &lt; 0.0001). The cleaning potential of the airflow device increased with wider defects. SEM evaluation displayed distinct surface alterations after instrumentation with steel tips, whereas glycine powder instrumentation had only a minute effect on the surface topography. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present in vitro model, airflow devices using glycine powders seem to constitute an efficient therapeutic option for the debridement of implants in peri‐implantitis defects. Still, some uncleaned areas remained. In wide defects, differences between instruments are more accentuated.</description><subject>air flow</subject><subject>debridement</subject><subject>Debridement - instrumentation</subject><subject>Decontamination - instrumentation</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>In Vitro Techniques</subject><subject>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</subject><subject>nonsurgical</subject><subject>peri-implantitis</subject><subject>Peri-Implantitis - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kEtPwzAQhC0EgvI48AdQjnAIXdu1Ex9RBaWoBcRDHC3H2YAhaYqd8vj3GFq4sZeRRt-MVkPIPoVjGq9va39MGWdsjfSoBEhBAF0nPVAg0oxKukW2Q3gGAKlytUm22IBnHITskYvxLHlznW8TW6OZudljMm87nHXO1ElbJd2TR0xKV1Xoo5u4Zl6bqCUW3pXYfHsNdk9tGXbJRmXqgHsr3SH3Z6d3w_N0cjUaD08mqR0wxVKRMW5pAVJKpQDUgBuwWUFLlHmZGxSFADDcCpspiZEockltRZnNUKGyfIccLnvnvn1dYOh044LFOv6F7SJoKgUbiDyneUSPlqj1bQgeKz33rjH-U1PQ39PpOJ3-mS6yB6vaRdFg-Uf-bhWB_hJ4dzV-_t-kh5Ob38p0mXChw4-_hPEvWmY8E_rhcqRHl9Pp9cPtVN_yL9G-hvM</recordid><startdate>201503</startdate><enddate>201503</enddate><creator>Sahrmann, Philipp</creator><creator>Ronay, Valerie</creator><creator>Hofer, Deborah</creator><creator>Attin, Thomas</creator><creator>Jung, Ronald E.</creator><creator>Schmidlin, Patrick R.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201503</creationdate><title>In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods</title><author>Sahrmann, Philipp ; Ronay, Valerie ; Hofer, Deborah ; Attin, Thomas ; Jung, Ronald E. ; Schmidlin, Patrick R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>air flow</topic><topic>debridement</topic><topic>Debridement - instrumentation</topic><topic>Decontamination - instrumentation</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>In Vitro Techniques</topic><topic>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</topic><topic>nonsurgical</topic><topic>peri-implantitis</topic><topic>Peri-Implantitis - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sahrmann, Philipp</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ronay, Valerie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofer, Deborah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Attin, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jung, Ronald E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schmidlin, Patrick R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sahrmann, Philipp</au><au>Ronay, Valerie</au><au>Hofer, Deborah</au><au>Attin, Thomas</au><au>Jung, Ronald E.</au><au>Schmidlin, Patrick R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin. Oral Impl. Res</addtitle><date>2015-03</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>314</spage><epage>319</epage><pages>314-319</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>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 &lt; 0.0001). The cleaning potential of the airflow device increased with wider defects. SEM evaluation displayed distinct surface alterations after instrumentation with steel tips, whereas glycine powder instrumentation had only a minute effect on the surface topography. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present in vitro model, airflow devices using glycine powders seem to constitute an efficient therapeutic option for the debridement of implants in peri‐implantitis defects. Still, some uncleaned areas remained. In wide defects, differences between instruments are more accentuated.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>24373056</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.12322</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0905-7161
ispartof Clinical oral implants research, 2015-03, Vol.26 (3), p.314-319
issn 0905-7161
1600-0501
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1652458818
source Wiley
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
title In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T02%3A06%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=In%20vitro%20cleaning%20potential%20of%20three%20different%20implant%20debridement%20methods&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Sahrmann,%20Philipp&rft.date=2015-03&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=314&rft.epage=319&rft.pages=314-319&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.12322&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1652458818%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4292-5723c1b06669900943a0c7b1de68d8ae5b500a3c5c796e900b861cf12c7e9e9c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1652458818&rft_id=info:pmid/24373056&rfr_iscdi=true