TY - JOUR
T1 - Effects of mechanical instrumentation with commercially available instruments used in supportive peri-implant therapy
T2 - An in vitro study
AU - Sirinirund, Benyapha
AU - Garaicoa-Pazmino, Carlos
AU - Wang, Hom Lay
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the University of Michigan Microscopy and Image Analysis Core, the University of Michigan College of Engineering, and the Michigan Center for Materials Characterization for use of instruments and staff assistance. The authors also express their gratitude to Anne L. Miller, RDH, MS, for providing the instruments and device used in this study on behalf of Hu-Friedy Manufacturing, LLC. Additionally, the authors thank Zimmer Biomet and Straumann USA LLC for supplying expired dental implants. This study was funded by the University of Michigan Periodontal Graduate Student Research Fund. The authors received no financial support and declare no potential conflict of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc.
PY - 2019
Y1 - 2019
N2 - Purpose: To evaluate topographic changes and effectiveness of mechanical instrumentation upon machined (MA) and roughened (RG) surfaces of dental implants. Materials and Methods: The coronal one-third of seven RG and seven MA implants was coated with a mixture of cyanoacrylate and toluidine blue dye to resemble calculus. Implants were cleaned with three curettes (SS: stainless steel, PT: plastic, TI: titanium), two ultrasonic tips (UM: metal tip, UP: plastic tip), a titanium brush (TB), and an air-polishing device (AA) until visibly clean. Additionally, a simulation of 1- and 5-year supportive peri-implant therapy (SPT) was performed on 14 implants using the aforementioned instruments with 20 strokes/40 s (T1) or 100 strokes/200 s (T5). Each implant was evaluated using stereomicroscopy, atomic force microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. Results: UM was the most effective instrument, with 0% average percentage of residual artificial calculus (RAC), followed by TB (2.89%) and UP (4.90%). SS was more effective than TI (15.43% vs 20.12% RAC, respectively), while PT failed to remove any deposit (100% RAC). AA completely removed deposits on RG surfaces but not MA surfaces (26.61% RAC). Noticeable topographic changes were observed between both implant surfaces. RG surfaces became less rough, whereas MA surfaces became rougher at both T1 and T5 with the exception of AA. Plastic- and titanium-like remnants were noted after debridement with PT, SS, and TI, respectively. Conclusion: Artificial calculus removal by mechanical instrumentation, with the exception of PT, was proven to be clinically effective. All instruments induced minor to major topographic changes upon dental implant surfaces. AA did not remarkably change MA and RG surfaces at both micrometer and nanometer levels. Findings from this study may impact the selection of instruments or devices used during SPT protocols.
AB - Purpose: To evaluate topographic changes and effectiveness of mechanical instrumentation upon machined (MA) and roughened (RG) surfaces of dental implants. Materials and Methods: The coronal one-third of seven RG and seven MA implants was coated with a mixture of cyanoacrylate and toluidine blue dye to resemble calculus. Implants were cleaned with three curettes (SS: stainless steel, PT: plastic, TI: titanium), two ultrasonic tips (UM: metal tip, UP: plastic tip), a titanium brush (TB), and an air-polishing device (AA) until visibly clean. Additionally, a simulation of 1- and 5-year supportive peri-implant therapy (SPT) was performed on 14 implants using the aforementioned instruments with 20 strokes/40 s (T1) or 100 strokes/200 s (T5). Each implant was evaluated using stereomicroscopy, atomic force microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. Results: UM was the most effective instrument, with 0% average percentage of residual artificial calculus (RAC), followed by TB (2.89%) and UP (4.90%). SS was more effective than TI (15.43% vs 20.12% RAC, respectively), while PT failed to remove any deposit (100% RAC). AA completely removed deposits on RG surfaces but not MA surfaces (26.61% RAC). Noticeable topographic changes were observed between both implant surfaces. RG surfaces became less rough, whereas MA surfaces became rougher at both T1 and T5 with the exception of AA. Plastic- and titanium-like remnants were noted after debridement with PT, SS, and TI, respectively. Conclusion: Artificial calculus removal by mechanical instrumentation, with the exception of PT, was proven to be clinically effective. All instruments induced minor to major topographic changes upon dental implant surfaces. AA did not remarkably change MA and RG surfaces at both micrometer and nanometer levels. Findings from this study may impact the selection of instruments or devices used during SPT protocols.
KW - Maintenance
KW - Mechanical instrumentation
KW - Microtexture
KW - Peri-implant disease
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074866256&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074866256&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.11607/jomi.7409
DO - 10.11607/jomi.7409
M3 - Article
C2 - 31711078
AN - SCOPUS:85074866256
SN - 0882-2786
VL - 34
SP - 1370
EP - 1378
JO - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
JF - The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants
IS - 6
ER -