OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the surface topography and element proportion changes of clinically failed implants after different modalities in vitro debridement, and to compare the cleaning effect of different method combinations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Thirty clinical failed implants were treated by different debridement methods in vitro as follows: Group 1: physiologic saline irrigation; Group 2: glycine powder air polishing; Group 3: glycine powder air polishing + ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA); Group 4: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) tip ultrasonic scaling; Group 5: PEEK tip ultrasonic scaling + EDTA. The relative contaminated area reduction (RCAR), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, the higher value means the better cleaning effect) and surface roughness were assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), stereoscopic microscopy (SM) and white light interferometry (WLI). Surface chemistry was determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS).
RESULTS
Group 4 and Group 5 showed higher RCARs (82.90%, 82.89%), VAS scores (2.61, 2.33) and roughness reductions (-0.85 μm, -1.80 μm). Group 3 attained the highest decrease of C% (Carbon, -26.67%), O% (Oxygen, -13.71%) and N% (Nitrogen, -5.66%), and the highest increase of Ti% (Titanium, 49.67%). PEEK remnants were detected on the implant surface of groups 4 and 5.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of the present in vitro design, PEEK tip ultrasonic scaling was more effective in eliminating visible contamination, while glycine powder air polishing combined with EDTA treatment was more conducive to expose the original surface element distribution. Both methods have their own advantages in decontamination, but none of them could reconstruct the surface as the pristine implant.
[1]
T. Becker,et al.
Cleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness.
,
2019,
Clinical implant dentistry and related research.
[2]
P. Eickholz,et al.
In vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations.
,
2019,
Clinical oral implants research.
[3]
A. Vanheusden,et al.
Decontamination of Dental Implant Surfaces by the Er:YAG Laser Beam: A Comparative in Vitro Study of Various Protocols
,
2018,
Dentistry journal.
[4]
S. Froum,et al.
A Pilot Study on the Efficacy of a Treatment Algorithm to Detoxify Dental Implant Surfaces Affected by Peri-implantitis.
,
2018,
The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.
[5]
T. Attin,et al.
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy
,
2017,
BMC Oral Health.
[6]
J. Shibli,et al.
The Effect of CO2 Laser Irradiation on Failed Implant Surfaces
,
2004,
Implant dentistry.
[7]
S. Lindskog,et al.
A clinical study of root surface conditioning with an EDTA gel. II. Surgical periodontal treatment.
,
2000,
The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.