Materials and methods : Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study [2]
The SEM analysis was performed as previously described [16,17,18]. The decontaminated implant samples were fixed with 2% glutaraldehyde-RPMI 1640 immediately for 1 h at room temperature and washed with distilled water. Then, the samples were dehydrated with 100% t-butyl alcohol and freeze-dried. Finally, the samples were coated with platinum and examined using an emission-scanning electron microscope (JSM-6390LVZ; JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). An ordinal scale with the following variables was set to facilitate the evaluation of cleansability qualitatively by each method.
No effect: Surface was cleansed ineffectively and covered with an enormous amount of amorphous material, debris, and bacteria.
Fair: Surface was cleansed partially well but was far from the ideal and covered with a certain amount of amorphous material, debris, and bacteria.
Good: Surface was cleansed effectively but not perfectly and covered with a little amount or partially no amount of amorphous material, debris, and bacteria.
Excellent: Surface was cleansed ideally and covered with no or only a small amount of amorphous material, debris, and bacteria.
SEM images were evaluated by two examiners (M.Y. and S.K.) who were unaware of the aim of this study. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance was used to investigate the inter-examiner reliability in the evaluation of SEM images. There was no significant difference between the two examiners (w = 0.865, p < 0.01).
To examine bacterial amounts on the implant surfaces, the samples were vortexed at maximum power for 30 s in 1 ml phosphate-buffered saline solution. Resuspended bacteria were serially diluted in a phosphate-buffered saline solution and plated on Brain Heart Infusion agar (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, USA). The number of CFUs was counted after overnight growth on the BHI agar at 37 °C in a candle jar.
Statistical significance of differences in bacterial CFU counts among the six groups, including the control group, was analyzed using the Steel-Dwass test (R version 3.4.0 (R Foundation for statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria)). Significant differences between rough and machined surface implants were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test (SPSS 23.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL)). p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
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