Gordon John1, Jürgen Becker, Frank Schwarz. 1. Department of Oral Surgery, Westdeutsche Kieferklinik, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was the evaluation of the effectiveness of plaque removing of a new rotating brush made of titanium in comparison with the cleaning procedure with steel curettes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plaque was collected by six volunteers for 48 h. A total of 60 samples were randomly designated to two groups: the test group TiBrush and the control group with steel curettes. The residual plaque area (RPA) and the treatment time were determined as parameters. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed for detecting possible damages of the treatment procedures. RESULTS: The mean RPA within the TiBrush group (8.57 ± 4.85%) was significant lower than in the control group (28.99 ± 5.51%), while the mean treatment time was also significant lower in the TiBrush group (176.7 ± 15.2 sec) in comparison with the steel curettes (303.5 ± 11.5 sec). The outcomes of SEM analysis showed no surface alteration after TiBrush treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, this investigation concludes that TiBrush seems to be more effective in plaque removing capacity, while being gentler to the implant surface than the processing with steel curettes. These promising results could hold out an improvement of conventional periimplantitis treatment. Further studies are needed to prove these outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was the evaluation of the effectiveness of plaque removing of a new rotating brush made of titanium in comparison with the cleaning procedure with steel curettes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Plaque was collected by six volunteers for 48 h. A total of 60 samples were randomly designated to two groups: the test group TiBrush and the control group with steel curettes. The residual plaque area (RPA) and the treatment time were determined as parameters. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed for detecting possible damages of the treatment procedures. RESULTS: The mean RPA within the TiBrush group (8.57 ± 4.85%) was significant lower than in the control group (28.99 ± 5.51%), while the mean treatment time was also significant lower in the TiBrush group (176.7 ± 15.2 sec) in comparison with the steel curettes (303.5 ± 11.5 sec). The outcomes of SEM analysis showed no surface alteration after TiBrush treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, this investigation concludes that TiBrush seems to be more effective in plaque removing capacity, while being gentler to the implant surface than the processing with steel curettes. These promising results could hold out an improvement of conventional periimplantitis treatment. Further studies are needed to prove these outcomes.