Otto Zuhr1,2, Hari Petsos3,4, Vivian Tuchscheerer5, Peter Eickholz1, Bettina Dannewitz1,6, Christoph Ratka7. 1. Department of Periodontology, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. 2. , Munich, Germany. 3. Department of Periodontology, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt/Main, Germany. petsos@med.uni-frankfurt.de. 4. , Soest, Germany. petsos@med.uni-frankfurt.de. 5. , Salzhausen, Germany. 6. , Weilburg, Germany. 7. Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60596, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of surgical and non-surgical air-polishing in vitro efficacy for implant surface decontamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One 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). RESULTS: Cleaning 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. CONCLUSIONS: Air-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 RELEVANCE: Air-polishing appears to be promising for implant surface decontamination regardless of the device.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of surgical and non-surgical air-polishing in vitro efficacy for implant surface decontamination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One 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). RESULTS: Cleaning 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. CONCLUSIONS: Air-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 RELEVANCE: Air-polishing appears to be promising for implant surface decontamination regardless of the device.
Authors: Bjarni E Pjetursson; Christoph Helbling; Hans-Peter Weber; Giedre Matuliene; Giovanni E Salvi; Urs Brägger; Kurt Schmidlin; Marcel Zwahlen; Niklaus P Lang Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Tord Berglundh; Gary Armitage; Mauricio G Araujo; Gustavo Avila-Ortiz; Juan Blanco; Paulo M Camargo; Stephen Chen; David Cochran; Jan Derks; Elena Figuero; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Lisa J A Heitz-Mayfield; Guy Huynh-Ba; Vincent Iacono; Ki-Tae Koo; France Lambert; Laurie McCauley; Marc Quirynen; Stefan Renvert; Giovanni E Salvi; Frank Schwarz; Dennis Tarnow; Cristiano Tomasi; Hom-Lay Wang; Nicola Zitzmann Journal: J Periodontol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 6.993
Authors: Diederik F M Hentenaar; Yvonne C M De Waal; Roy E Stewart; Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff; Henny J A Meijer; Gerry M Raghoebar Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 5.021