Home > Journals > Minerva Stomatologica > Past Issues > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5) > Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5):286-94

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Stomatologica 2020 October;69(5):286-94

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4970.20.04342-3

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Comparison between four different implant surface debridement methods: an in-vitro experimental study

Magda MENSI 1, Lorenzo VIVIANI 1 , Raffaele AGOSTI 1, Eleonora SCOTTI 1, Gianluca GARZETTI 1, Stefano CALZA 2

1 Section of Periodontics, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, School of Dentistry, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy; 2 Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy



BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis treatment is a very challenging topic to discuss. What is certain is that preventive/supportive therapy plays a key-role in peri-implant tissues’ health maintenance and non-surgical implant surface mechanical debridement remains one of the solid pillars in the therapeutic pathway. In this perspective, many surface decontaminating methods have been proposed and tested to remove hard and soft bacterial deposits. The aim of this study was to compare four different commonly used non-surgical implant debridement methods in terms of cleaning potential in vitro, using a peri-implant pocket-simulating model.
METHODS: Sixty-four dental implants were ink-stained and placed into a simulated peri-implant pocket. Samples were then divided into four groups and treated with different debridement methods: stainless-steel ultrasonic tip (PS), peek-coated ultrasonic tip (PI), sub-gingival air-polishing with erythritol powder (EHX) and sub-gingival air-polishing with glycine powder (GLY). For each treatment group, half of the samples were treated for 5 seconds and the other half for 45 seconds. High-resolution images were taken using a digital microscope and later analyzed with a light processing software for measuring the cleaned area percentage (ink-free). Two different images were captured for every sample: a first image with the implant positioned perpendicular to the microscope lenses (90°) and a second one with the implant placed with a 45° vertical angulation, with the smooth neck towards the ground. Percentage of removed ink was statistically modelled using a generalized linear mixed model with the implant as a random (clustering) factor.
RESULTS: A paired comparison between all treatments in terms of debridement potential (cleaned area percentage) was performed. In 5s and with 90° sample angulation EHX/PS comparison showed an odds ratio of 2.75 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 2.90 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.19 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR of 0.56 (P=0.105). With the same sample angulation and 45s treatment time, the OR was 6.97 (P<0.001) for EHX/PS comparison, 0.14 (P<0.001) for PI/EHX comparison, 4.99 (P<0.001) for GLY/PS, 0.19 (P<0.001) for PI/GLY and 0.95 for PI/PS (P =0.989). With 5s of treatment time and 45° sample angulation, EHX/PS comparison shows a 3.19 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/EHX a 0.14 odds ratio (P<0.001), GLY/PS a 3.06 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/GLY a 0.15 odds ratio (P<0.001) and PI/PS a 0.46 odds ratio (P=0.017). With the same sample angulation but 45s treatment time, EHX/PS comparison produced an odds ratio of 4.90 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 8.74 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.11 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR 0.96 of (P =0.996).
CONCLUSIONS: Among the four treatments considered, air-polishing therapy represents the best one in terms of ink removal from the implant surface. Furthermore, increasing the treatment time to 45 seconds, air-polishing resulted considerably more efficient.


KEY WORDS: Dental implants; Biofilms; Erythritol; Peri-implantitis

top of page