In vitro cleaning potential of three implant debridement methods. Simulation of the non‐surgical approach

Objectives To assess the cleaning potential of commonly used implant debridement methods, simulating non‐surgical peri‐implantitis therapy in vitro. Materials and methods One‐hundred‐and‐eighty dental implants were ink‐stained and mounted in combined soft and hard tissue models, representing peri‐im...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2017-02, Vol.28 (2), p.151-155
Main Authors: Ronay, Valerie, Merlini, Andrea, Attin, Thomas, Schmidlin, Patrick R., Sahrmann, Philipp
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Abrasion
Abrasive cleaning
Air Abrasion, Dental - methods
air‐flow
Cleaning
Color
Computer simulation
debridement
Debridement - instrumentation
Defects
Dental Implants
Dental materials
Dental prosthetics
Dental restorative materials
Dental Scaling - instrumentation
Dentistry
Glycine
In vitro methods and tests
In Vitro Techniques
Instrumentation
Instruments
Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
Mucosa
non‐surgical
Periodontics
Peri‐implantitis
Powder
Powders
Scanning electron microscopy
Surface Properties
Surgery
Surgical implants
Tips
Transplants & implants
Variance analysis
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!
Description
Summary:Objectives To assess the cleaning potential of commonly used implant debridement methods, simulating non‐surgical peri‐implantitis therapy in vitro. Materials and methods One‐hundred‐and‐eighty dental implants were ink‐stained and mounted in combined soft and hard tissue models, representing peri‐implantitis defects with angulations of 30, 60, and 90° covered by a custom‐made artificial mucosa. Implants were treated by a dental school graduate and a board‐certified periodontist for 120 s with following instruments: Gracey curette, ultrasonic scaler, and an air powder abrasive device with a nozzle for sub‐mucosal use utilizing glycine powder. All procedures were repeated 10 times for each instrumentation and defect morphology respectively. Images of the implant surface were taken. Areas with color remnants were planimetrically determined and their cumulative surface area was calculated. Results were tested for statistical differences using two‐way anova and Bonferroni correction. Micro‐morphologic surface changes were analyzed on scanning electron microscope (SEM) images. Results The areas of uncleaned surfaces (%, mean ± standard deviations) for curettes, ultrasonic tips, and air abrasion accounted for 74.70 ± 4.89%, 66.95 ± 8.69% and 33.87 ± 12.59% respectively. The air powder abrasive device showed significantly better results for all defect angulations (P 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.12773