Complications

During the experiment, three participants experienced small ulcers caused by the implants carried on the splints; however, it did not affect their daily life. Additionally, there were no signs of gingival inflammation in any participant.

SEM analysis (Fig 4, Tables 1 and 2)

Rough surface implants

G and Rot achieved relatively clean implant surfaces compared with Las in micro- and macrothread areas. US and Air demonstrated fair cleansability in microthread and good cleansability in macrothread areas, whereas Las did not show effective cleansability in either areas.

Machined surface implants

G and Rot attained almost clean implant surfaces compared with the other methods in micro- and macrothread areas. US and Air also showed good cleansability in micro- and macrothread areas. Las demonstrated fair to good cleansability in both areas.

Rough vs machined surface implants

Generally, biofilms appeared to be denser and more firmly attached to rough surface implants than machined surface implants before and after decontamination. Moreover, after cleansing, the machined surface implants appeared cleaner with thin layers and clusters of residual biofilms compared with rough surface implants. Overall, all methods tended to show better cleansability of machined surface implants than rough surface implants.

Analysis of bacterial CFU count (Figs. 5 and 6, Table 3)

Rough surface implants (Fig. 5, Table 3)

All decontamination methods showed significant residual bacterial reduction in terms of bacterial CFU count compared with Cont (p < 0.05). Moreover, G, Air, and Rot displayed significantly superior cleansability to US (p < 0.05).

Machined surface implants (Fig. 5, Table 3)

All decontamination methods showed significantly better cleansability in terms of bacterial CFU counts compared with Cont (p < 0.05). Additionally, G, Air, and Rot demonstrated significantly better cleansability than US (p < 0.05), and only G showed significantly better cleansability compared with Las (p < 0.05).

Rough vs. machined surface implants (Fig. 6, Table 3)

Cont, G, and US demonstrated significant differences in bacterial CFU counts between rough and machined surface implants (p < 0.05). Although there was no significant difference in CFU counts between the two groups following Air, Rot, and Las application, machined surface implants appeared to show lower CFU counts than rough surface implants following Air and Rot application.