
AbstractObjectivesThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of two mechanical and two chemical protocols in the decontamination of implant surfaces.MethodsIn total, 123 commercially available implants were mounted in plastic models mimicking peri‐implant circumferential intra‐bony defects. A multispecies biofilm was grown on implant surfaces. Mechanical (air‐polishing (AP), rotating titanium brush (TiB)) and chemical decontamination (alkaline electrolyzed water, N‐acetyl‐L‐cysteine) protocols were used. Cleaning efficacy in terms of residual biofilm area, chemical surface properties, and bacterial counts were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, energy‐dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.ResultsSurface decontamination protocols including use of an AP device or a rotating TiB were superior in terms of biofilm removal and in reducing atomic% of Carbon on implant surfaces when compared to methods restricted to wiping with gauze. The use of chemical agents as adjuncts to the mechanical cleaning protocols provided no relevant overall benefit over saline. No treatment modality, however, resulted in complete biofilm removal.ConclusionAir‐polishing and rotating TiB were more effective implant surface decontamination protocols than wiping with gauzes. Use of chemical agents did not improve cleaning efficacy.
2410.02 Anatomía Humana, dental implant, chemical cleaning, mechanical instrumentation, chemical cleaning; decontamination; dental implant; mechanical instrumentation; peri-implantitis, 611.95, decontamination, Anatomía, peri-implantitis
2410.02 Anatomía Humana, dental implant, chemical cleaning, mechanical instrumentation, chemical cleaning; decontamination; dental implant; mechanical instrumentation; peri-implantitis, 611.95, decontamination, Anatomía, peri-implantitis
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 13 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
