Holger Zipprich1, Paul Weigl2, Riccardo Di Gianfilippo3, Larissa Steigmann4, Dirk Henrich5, Hom-Lay Wang4, Markus Schlee6, Christoph Ratka7. 1. , 64342, Seeheim-Jugenheim, Germany. 2. Department of Postgraduate Education, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, J. W. Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 3. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North university Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. rdgianfi@umich.edu. 4. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan - School of Dentistry, 1011 North university Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 5. Department of Trauma, Hand & Reconstructive Surgery, Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 6. Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Goethe University, 60596, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. 7. , 63477, Maintal, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the in vitro decontamination efficacy of two electrolytic cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) implants were incubated with 2 ml of human saliva and Tryptic Soy Broth solution under continuous shaking for 14 days. Implants were then randomly assigned to one untreated control group (n = 10) and 5 different decontamination modalities: air-abrasive powder (n = 10), diode laser (n = 10), plasma cleaning (n = 10), and two electrolytic test protocols using either potassium iodide (KI) (n = 10) or sodium formate (CHNaO2) (n = 10) solution. Implants were stained for dead and alive bacteria in two standardized measurement areas, observed at fluorescent microscope, and analyzed for color intensity. RESULTS: All disinfecting treatment modalities significantly reduced the stained area compared to the untreated control group for both measurement areas (p < 0.001). Among test interventions, electrolytic KI and CHNaO2 treatments were equally effective, and each one significantly reduced the stained area compared to any other treatment modality (p < 0.001). Efficacy of electrolytic protocols was not affected by the angulation of examined surfaces [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): electrolytic cleaning-KI 0.03 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.10; electrolytic cleaning-CHNaO2 0.01 ± 0.01 vs. 0.06 ± 0.08; (p > 0.05)], while air abrasion [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 2.66 ± 0.83 vs. 42.12 ± 3.46 (p < 0.001)] and plasma cleaning [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 33.25 ± 3.01 vs. 39.16 ± 3.15 (p < 0.001)] were. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, electrolytic decontamination with KI and CHNaO2 was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial stained surface of rough titanium implants than air-abrasive powder, diode laser, and plasma cleaning, regardless of the accessibility of the contaminated implant location. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Complete bacterial elimination (residual bacteria < 1%) was achieved only for the electrolytic cleaning approaches, irrespectively of the favorable or unfavorable access to implant surface.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the in vitro decontamination efficacy of two electrolytic cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) implants were incubated with 2 ml of human saliva and Tryptic Soy Broth solution under continuous shaking for 14 days. Implants were then randomly assigned to one untreated control group (n = 10) and 5 different decontamination modalities: air-abrasive powder (n = 10), diode laser (n = 10), plasma cleaning (n = 10), and two electrolytic test protocols using either potassium iodide (KI) (n = 10) or sodium formate (CHNaO2) (n = 10) solution. Implants were stained for dead and alive bacteria in two standardized measurement areas, observed at fluorescent microscope, and analyzed for color intensity. RESULTS: All disinfecting treatment modalities significantly reduced the stained area compared to the untreated control group for both measurement areas (p < 0.001). Among test interventions, electrolytic KI and CHNaO2 treatments were equally effective, and each one significantly reduced the stained area compared to any other treatment modality (p < 0.001). Efficacy of electrolytic protocols was not affected by the angulation of examined surfaces [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): electrolytic cleaning-KI 0.03 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.10; electrolytic cleaning-CHNaO2 0.01 ± 0.01 vs. 0.06 ± 0.08; (p > 0.05)], while air abrasion [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 2.66 ± 0.83 vs. 42.12 ± 3.46 (p < 0.001)] and plasma cleaning [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 33.25 ± 3.01 vs. 39.16 ± 3.15 (p < 0.001)] were. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, electrolytic decontamination with KI and CHNaO2 was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial stained surface of rough titanium implants than air-abrasive powder, diode laser, and plasma cleaning, regardless of the accessibility of the contaminated implant location. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Complete bacterial elimination (residual bacteria < 1%) was achieved only for the electrolytic cleaning approaches, irrespectively of the favorable or unfavorable access to implant surface.
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 Clin Periodontol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Giovanni E Salvi; Marco Aglietta; Sigrun Eick; Anton Sculean; Niklaus P Lang; Christoph A Ramseier Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2011-08-02 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Luigi Canullo; Miguel Peñarrocha; Alberto Monje; Andres Catena; Hom-Lay Wang; David Peñarrocha Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.804