BMC oral health · 2026
Implant cleaning performance of powder abrasive devices: an in-vitro study on the non-surgical and surgical approach.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Herzog Johannes, Lüber Alexandra, Gemperle Milena, Schmidlin Patrick R, Sahrmann Philipp
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To assess the cleaning potential of different powder abrasive devices (PADs) employing glycine powder in different peri-implant defect models, simulating the non-surgical and surgical approach.
METHODS: 120 implants were stained with insoluble ink and mounted in models with circular steep and horizontal defects with and without simulated mucosa. Debridement was performed with three different commercially available PADs (1-3) for 120 s, either with a hand piece for the surgical or the nozzle for the non-surgical approach. Each treatment mode was performed on ten implants, respectively. Photos from each implant were taken under UV-A light activation and residually stained areas planimetrically assessed. Cleaning was tested for intergroup differences by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Potential changes in the micro-morphology were investigated by scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Taken all experiments together, device I performed significantly better than the others (p < 0.05). For the non-surgical approach, no significant overall difference was found. Horizontal defects were cleaned better than steep defects in all treatment-groups (p < 0.001). For the surgical approach, there was a significant overall difference between group I and III (p = 0.031). For both defect types, significant inter-group differences were found except for group II and III in the horizontal defect (p < 0.05). No configuration showed complete cleaning. Apically facing thread surfaces were found to be the most difficult to clean.
CONCLUSION: (1) Different devices showed considerably different cleaning performances. Generally, stand-alone devices tended to perform better than powder chambers mounted on a handpiece. (2) Throughout the settings, steep defects are more difficult to clean.
METHODS: 120 implants were stained with insoluble ink and mounted in models with circular steep and horizontal defects with and without simulated mucosa. Debridement was performed with three different commercially available PADs (1-3) for 120 s, either with a hand piece for the surgical or the nozzle for the non-surgical approach. Each treatment mode was performed on ten implants, respectively. Photos from each implant were taken under UV-A light activation and residually stained areas planimetrically assessed. Cleaning was tested for intergroup differences by two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction. Potential changes in the micro-morphology were investigated by scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS: Taken all experiments together, device I performed significantly better than the others (p < 0.05). For the non-surgical approach, no significant overall difference was found. Horizontal defects were cleaned better than steep defects in all treatment-groups (p < 0.001). For the surgical approach, there was a significant overall difference between group I and III (p = 0.031). For both defect types, significant inter-group differences were found except for group II and III in the horizontal defect (p < 0.05). No configuration showed complete cleaning. Apically facing thread surfaces were found to be the most difficult to clean.
CONCLUSION: (1) Different devices showed considerably different cleaning performances. Generally, stand-alone devices tended to perform better than powder chambers mounted on a handpiece. (2) Throughout the settings, steep defects are more difficult to clean.