Abstract
ObjectivesEvaluation of surgical and non-surgical air-polishing in vitro efficacy for implant surface decontamination.Material and methodsOne hundred eighty implants were distributed to three differently angulated bone defect models (30°, 60°, 90°). Biofilm was imitated using indelible red color. Sixty implants were used for each defect, 20 of which were air-polished with three different types of glycine air powder abrasion (GAPA1–3) combinations. Within 20 equally air-polished implants, a surgical and non-surgical (with/without mucosa mask) procedure were simulated. All implants were photographed to determine the uncleaned surface. Changes in surface morphology were assessed using scanning electron micrographs (SEM).ResultsCleaning efficacy did not show any significant differences between GAPA1–3 for surgical and non-surgical application. Within a cleaning method significant (p < 0.001) differences for GAPA2 between 30° (11.77 ± 2.73%) and 90° (7.25 ± 1.42%) in the non-surgical and 30° (8.26 ± 1.02%) and 60° (5.02 ± 0.84%) in the surgical simulation occurred. The surgical use of air-polishing (6.68 ± 1.66%) was significantly superior (p < 0.001) to the non-surgical (10.13 ± 2.75%). SEM micrographs showed no surface damages after use of GAPA.ConclusionsAir-polishing is an efficient, surface protective method for surgical and non-surgical implant surface decontamination in this in vitro model. No method resulted in a complete cleaning of the implant surface.Clinical relevanceAir-polishing appears to be promising for implant surface decontamination regardless of the device.
Highlights
There is clear evidence that plaque is the primary etiological factor for the development of peri-implant mucositis or periimplantitis [1] as it was compiled at the 2017 classification workshop for periodontal and peri-implant diseases [2]
Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has turned out to be the method of choice [9,10,11], while in peri-implantitis non-surgical treatment alone is largely not effective [1, 9, 12] due to the re-maturing of plaque
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of three different combinations of air-polishing methods for implant surface decontamination in different non-surgical and surgical in vitro defect models (30°, 60°, 90°)
Summary
There is clear evidence that plaque is the primary etiological factor for the development of peri-implant mucositis or periimplantitis [1] as it was compiled at the 2017 classification workshop for periodontal and peri-implant diseases [2]. Prevention and therapy of these diseases aims to disrupt the biofilm on the implant surface as a cause. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has turned out to be the method of choice [9,10,11], while in peri-implantitis non-surgical treatment alone is largely not effective [1, 9, 12] due to the re-maturing of plaque. The implant geometry with its micro- and/or macro-threads and the rough
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
