David Keim1,2, Katrin Nickles1,3, Bettina Dannewitz1,4, Christoph Ratka5, Peter Eickholz1, Hari Petsos1,6. 1. Department of Periodontology, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 2. Private Practice, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 3. Private Practice, Mannheim, Germany. 4. Private Practice, Weilburg, Germany. 5. Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 6. Private Practice, Soest, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of in vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in a peri-implant bone defect model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 180 implants were stained with indelible red color and distributed to standardized peri-implant bone defect resin models with a circumferential defect angulation of 30°, 60°, or 90° (supraosseous defect). Sixty implants were assigned to each type of defect. All implants were cleaned by the same examiner. For each type of defect, 20 implants were cleaned for 2 min with one of 3 devices: curette (CUR), sonicscaler (SOSC), or air abrasion with glycine powder (APA). Thereafter, photographs were taken from both sides of each implant and the cumulative uncleaned implant surface area was measured by color recognition technique. Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) were examined to assess morphologic surface damages. RESULTS: The cleaning efficacy as percent (%) of residual color was significantly different for each of the 3 defect angulations (p < 0.001) for each treatment device: 30° CUR: 53.44% > SOSC: 19.69% > APA: 8.03%; 60° CUR: 57.13% > SOSC: 11.4% > APA: 0.13%; and 90° CUR: 48.1% > SOSC: 13.07% > APA: 0.58%. The differences between the three different cleaning modalities within each defect type were also significant (p < 0.005). SEM micrographs showed no surface damages after the use of APA. CONCLUSION: Air powder abrasion is the most efficient (APA > SOSC > CUR) and less surface damaging treatment modality for each defect angulation in this in vitro model.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of in vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in a peri-implant bone defect model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 180 implants were stained with indelible red color and distributed to standardized peri-implant bone defect resin models with a circumferential defect angulation of 30°, 60°, or 90° (supraosseous defect). Sixty implants were assigned to each type of defect. All implants were cleaned by the same examiner. For each type of defect, 20 implants were cleaned for 2 min with one of 3 devices: curette (CUR), sonicscaler (SOSC), or air abrasion with glycine powder (APA). Thereafter, photographs were taken from both sides of each implant and the cumulative uncleaned implant surface area was measured by color recognition technique. Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) were examined to assess morphologic surface damages. RESULTS: The cleaning efficacy as percent (%) of residual color was significantly different for each of the 3 defect angulations (p < 0.001) for each treatment device: 30° CUR: 53.44% > SOSC: 19.69% > APA: 8.03%; 60° CUR: 57.13% > SOSC: 11.4% > APA: 0.13%; and 90° CUR: 48.1% > SOSC: 13.07% > APA: 0.58%. The differences between the three different cleaning modalities within each defect type were also significant (p < 0.005). SEM micrographs showed no surface damages after the use of APA. CONCLUSION: Air powder abrasion is the most efficient (APA > SOSC > CUR) and less surface damaging treatment modality for each defect angulation in this in vitro model.