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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Valerie Steiger-Ronay, Andrea Merlini, Daniel B. Wiedemeier, Patrick R. Schmidlin, Thomas Attin, Philipp Sahrmann
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