We have located links that may give you full text access.
In-vitro efficacy of three different implant-surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations.
Clinical Oral Implants Research 2019 April 23
OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of in-vitro efficacy of 3 different implant-surface decontamination methods in a peri-implant bone defect model.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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 minutes with one of 3 devices: curette (CUR), sonicscaler (SOSC) or air abrasion with glycine powder (APA). Thereafter photos 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%; 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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 minutes with one of 3 devices: curette (CUR), sonicscaler (SOSC) or air abrasion with glycine powder (APA). Thereafter photos 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%; 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app