Ronay Valerie, Merlini Andrea, Attin Thomas, Schmidlin Patrick R, Sahrmann Philipp
Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental and Oral Medicine and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Feb;28(2):151-155. doi: 10.1111/clr.12773. Epub 2016 Jan 22.
To assess the cleaning potential of commonly used implant debridement methods, simulating non-surgical peri-implantitis therapy in vitro.
One-hundred-and-eighty dental implants were ink-stained and mounted in combined soft and hard tissue models, representing peri-implantitis defects with angulations of 30, 60, and 90° covered by a custom-made artificial mucosa. Implants were treated by a dental school graduate and a board-certified periodontist for 120 s with following instruments: Gracey curette, ultrasonic scaler, and an air powder abrasive device with a nozzle for sub-mucosal use utilizing glycine powder. All procedures were repeated 10 times for each instrumentation and defect morphology respectively. Images of the implant surface were taken. Areas with color remnants were planimetrically determined and their cumulative surface area was calculated. Results were tested for statistical differences using two-way anova and Bonferroni correction. Micro-morphologic surface changes were analyzed on scanning electron microscope (SEM) images.
The areas of uncleaned surfaces (%, mean ± standard deviations) for curettes, ultrasonic tips, and air abrasion accounted for 74.70 ± 4.89%, 66.95 ± 8.69% and 33.87 ± 12.59% respectively. The air powder abrasive device showed significantly better results for all defect angulations (P < 0.0001). SEM evaluation displayed considerable surface alterations after instrumentation with Gracey curettes and ultrasonic devices, whereas glycine powder did not result in any surface alterations.
A complete surface cleaning could not be achieved regardless of the instrumentation method applied. The air powder abrasive device showed a superior cleaning potential for all defect angulations with better results at wide defects.
在体外模拟非手术性种植体周围炎治疗,评估常用种植体清创方法的清洁潜力。
180颗牙种植体用墨水染色后安装在软硬组织联合模型中,该模型代表种植体周围炎缺损,角度分别为30°、60°和90°,覆盖定制的人工黏膜。一名牙科学校毕业生和一名获得委员会认证的牙周病医生使用以下器械对种植体进行120秒的处理:格雷斯刮治器、超声洁治器和一种使用甘氨酸粉末的用于黏膜下使用的气粉研磨装置。每种器械和缺损形态分别重复该操作10次。拍摄种植体表面图像。用平面测量法确定有颜色残留的区域,并计算其累积表面积。使用双向方差分析和邦费罗尼校正对结果进行统计学差异检验。在扫描电子显微镜(SEM)图像上分析微观形态表面变化。
刮治器、超声洁治头和气磨的未清洁表面面积(%,平均值±标准差)分别为74.70±4.89%、66.95±8.69%和33.87±12.59%。气粉研磨装置在所有缺损角度下均显示出显著更好的效果(P<0.0001)。SEM评估显示,使用格雷斯刮治器和超声设备处理后表面有明显改变,而甘氨酸粉末未导致任何表面改变。
无论采用何种器械方法,均无法实现完全的表面清洁。气粉研磨装置在所有缺损角度下均显示出卓越的清洁潜力,在宽缺损处效果更佳。