Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy
Abstract Background An in vitro model for peri-implantitis treatment was used to identify areas that are clinically difficult to clean by analyzing the pattern of residual stain after debridement with commonly employed instruments. Methods Original data from two previous publications, which simulate...
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
BMC
2017-11-01
|
Series: | BMC Oral Health |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12903-017-0428-8 |
id |
doaj-380906f439fc4b07aea0bbb8b5edc896 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-380906f439fc4b07aea0bbb8b5edc8962020-11-24T23:22:55ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312017-11-011711710.1186/s12903-017-0428-8Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapyValerie Steiger-Ronay0Andrea Merlini1Daniel B. Wiedemeier2Patrick R. Schmidlin3Thomas Attin4Philipp Sahrmann5Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichClinic of Masticatory Disorders, Removable Prosthodontics, Geriatric and Special Care Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichStatistical Services, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichClinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of ZurichAbstract Background An in vitro model for peri-implantitis treatment was used to identify areas that are clinically difficult to clean by analyzing the pattern of residual stain after debridement with commonly employed instruments. Methods Original data from two previous publications, which simulated surgical (SA) and non-surgical (NSA) implant debridement on two different implant systems respectively, were reanalyzed regarding the localization pattern of residual stains after instrumentation. Two blinded examiners evaluated standardized photographs of 360 initially ink-stained dental implants, which were cleaned at variable defect angulations (30, 60, or 90°), using different instrument types (Gracey curette, ultrasonic scaler or air powder abrasive device) and treatment approaches (SA or NSA). Predefined implant surface areas were graded for residual stain using scores ranging from one (stain-covered) to six (clean). Score differences between respective implant areas were tested for significance by pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon-rank-sum-tests with a significance level α = 5%. Results Best scores were found at the machined surface areas (SA: 5.58 ± 0.43, NSA: 4.76 ± 1.09), followed by the tips of the threads (SA: 4.29 ± 0.44, NSA: 4.43 ± 0.61), and areas between threads (SA: 3.79 ± 0.89, NSA: 2.42 ± 1.11). Apically facing threads were most difficult to clean (SA: 1.70 ± 0.92, NSA: 2.42 ± 1.11). Here, air powder abrasives provided the best results. Conclusion Machined surfaces at the implant shoulder were well accessible and showed least amounts of residual stain. Apically facing thread surfaces constituted the area with most residual stain regardless of treatment approach.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12903-017-0428-8Peri-implantitisDebridementNon-surgicalSurgicalCleaningTreatment |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Valerie Steiger-Ronay Andrea Merlini Daniel B. Wiedemeier Patrick R. Schmidlin Thomas Attin Philipp Sahrmann |
spellingShingle |
Valerie Steiger-Ronay Andrea Merlini Daniel B. Wiedemeier Patrick R. Schmidlin Thomas Attin Philipp Sahrmann Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy BMC Oral Health Peri-implantitis Debridement Non-surgical Surgical Cleaning Treatment |
author_facet |
Valerie Steiger-Ronay Andrea Merlini Daniel B. Wiedemeier Patrick R. Schmidlin Thomas Attin Philipp Sahrmann |
author_sort |
Valerie Steiger-Ronay |
title |
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
title_short |
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
title_full |
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
title_fullStr |
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
title_full_unstemmed |
Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
title_sort |
location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy |
publisher |
BMC |
series |
BMC Oral Health |
issn |
1472-6831 |
publishDate |
2017-11-01 |
description |
Abstract Background An in vitro model for peri-implantitis treatment was used to identify areas that are clinically difficult to clean by analyzing the pattern of residual stain after debridement with commonly employed instruments. Methods Original data from two previous publications, which simulated surgical (SA) and non-surgical (NSA) implant debridement on two different implant systems respectively, were reanalyzed regarding the localization pattern of residual stains after instrumentation. Two blinded examiners evaluated standardized photographs of 360 initially ink-stained dental implants, which were cleaned at variable defect angulations (30, 60, or 90°), using different instrument types (Gracey curette, ultrasonic scaler or air powder abrasive device) and treatment approaches (SA or NSA). Predefined implant surface areas were graded for residual stain using scores ranging from one (stain-covered) to six (clean). Score differences between respective implant areas were tested for significance by pairwise comparisons using Wilcoxon-rank-sum-tests with a significance level α = 5%. Results Best scores were found at the machined surface areas (SA: 5.58 ± 0.43, NSA: 4.76 ± 1.09), followed by the tips of the threads (SA: 4.29 ± 0.44, NSA: 4.43 ± 0.61), and areas between threads (SA: 3.79 ± 0.89, NSA: 2.42 ± 1.11). Apically facing threads were most difficult to clean (SA: 1.70 ± 0.92, NSA: 2.42 ± 1.11). Here, air powder abrasives provided the best results. Conclusion Machined surfaces at the implant shoulder were well accessible and showed least amounts of residual stain. Apically facing thread surfaces constituted the area with most residual stain regardless of treatment approach. |
topic |
Peri-implantitis Debridement Non-surgical Surgical Cleaning Treatment |
url |
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12903-017-0428-8 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT valeriesteigerronay locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy AT andreamerlini locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy AT danielbwiedemeier locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy AT patrickrschmidlin locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy AT thomasattin locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy AT philippsahrmann locationofunaccessibleimplantsurfaceareasduringdebridementinsimulatedperiimplantitistherapy |
_version_ |
1725566184386985984 |