Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [2]
Based on the results of the SEM qualitative analysis, gauze soaked in saline and the rotary stainless steel instrument consistently showed good cleansability on rough and machined surface implants compared with the other methods. Conversely, the Er:YAG laser showed inferior cleansability to all other methods especially on rough surface implants. The ultrasonic scaler and air abrasive exhibited fair to good cleansability on both surface implants. Generally, the cleansability of each method appeared to be better on machined surface implants than rough surface implants.
The cleansability of gauze soaked in saline has previously been evaluated with and without antiseptics in vitro and in vivo [6, 9, 23, 26]. Charalampakis et al. [23] examined the efficacy of mechanical and chemical decontamination methods using titanium disks contaminated intraorally for 4 days. They employed four decontamination methods: gauze in saline, chlorhexidine, delmopinol, and an essential oil mixture. The SEM analysis demonstrated that three different rough surface disks harbored complex and firmly attached biofilms after gauze scrubbing irrespective of which antiseptic or saline was used. However, the disks with a turned surface hosted fewer biofilm clusters after scrubbing. This finding is in line with our result showing the better cleansability of gauze soaked in saline on the machined surface implants compared with the rough surface implants. The ultrasonic scaler, air abrasives, and Er:YAG laser have also been well investigated and used for the treatment of peri-implantitis [7, 27]. Schmage et al. [28] revealed the high cleansability of air abrasives and considerable cleansability of ultrasonic scalers and Er:YAG laser on titanium disks contaminated by a biofilm layer of Streptococcus mutans. The cleaning score of the air abrasives was the highest, and two types of ultrasonic scaler with a non-metal tip and the Er:YAG laser showed medium cleaning scores but better cleansability than non-metal curettes or a prophylaxis brush/cup. In the present study, the ultrasonic scaler displayed modest results. The tip used in this study was specially designed for cleansing contaminated implants with complicated macro- and microstructures. As the tip dimension was small in order to cleanse very narrow spaces, such as the valley of micro- or macrothreads, good cleansability was expected to be seen in such areas. This method could remove biofilms from small areas, but not in their entirety and not from the valley of microthreads. Moreover, the overall effect of biofilm removal did not appear impressive. One possible explanation for this result is that a treatment time of 1 min was not sufficient to use this small tip effectively. If more time was given to the ultrasonic scaler group, it might be possible to eliminate more biofilms, especially from microstructured areas of the implant.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Background : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Materials and methods : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [1]
- Materials and methods : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [2]
- Results : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [1]
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [2]
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [3]
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [4]
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [5]
- Discussion : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [6]
- Conclusions : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Availability of data and materials : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Abbreviations : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- References : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [1]
- References : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [2]
- References : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [3]
- References : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [4]
- Acknowledgements : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Funding : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Author information : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Ethics declarations : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Additional information : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Rights and permissions : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- About this article : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Table 1 Qualitative evaluation by SEM analysis of micro- and macrothread areas of rough surface implants : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Table 2 Qualitative evaluation by SEM analysis of micro- and macrothread areas of machined surface implants : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Table 3 Quantitative analysis of CFU counts (× 105) from rough and machined surface implants after cleansing by each method : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study
- Fig. 1. Hard resin splint model carrying 6 implants : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant
- Fig. 2. GC Aadva® implant; 3.3-mm diameter, 8-mm length : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant
- Fig. 3. Decontamination methods. a Gauze soaked in saline applied using a sawing motion. b Ultrasonic scaler (SUPRASSON P-MAX, Satelec-Acteon group, Bordeaux, France, power setting: P5, tip: Implant Protect IP3L/R). c Air abrasives (AIR-FLOW MASTER PIEZON®, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland, power setting: water flow 100%, air pressure 75%, powder: AIR-FLOW® PERIO POWDER, nozzle: PERIO-FLOW® nozzles, distance from the nozzle to the implant 2 mm). d Rotary stainless steel instrument (iBrush, NeoBiotech©, Los Angeles, USA, rotating speed 1500 rpm). e Er:YAG laser (Erwin AdvErL, J.Morita©, Kyoto, Japan, power setting 60 mJ/pulse, 10 pps, tip: C600F, distance from the tip to the implant 2 mm) : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant
- Fig. 4. SEM analysis of 4 areas. 1 Rough surface—microthread area. 2 Rough surface—macrothread area. 3 Machined surface—microthread area. 4 Machined surface—macrothread area : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant
- Fig. 5. Quantitative analysis of CFU counts on rough and machined surface implants after cleansing by each method. Asterisk represents vs Cont; a, vs G; b, vs US; c, vs Air; d, vs Rot; e, vs Las which indicates p < 0.05 : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant
- Fig. 6. Comparison of cleansability of each decontamination method on the different implant surfaces. Asterisk indicates p < 0.05 : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implant