Premium
In vitro evaluation of a novel biofilm remover
Author(s) -
Hofer D,
Meier A,
Sener B,
Guggenheim B,
Attin T,
Schmidlin PR
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
international journal of dental hygiene
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.674
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1601-5037
pISSN - 1601-5029
DOI - 10.1111/idh.12113
Subject(s) - biofilm , surface roughness , dentin , nuclear chemistry , surface finish , medicine , dentistry , in vitro , biomedical engineering , materials science , composite material , chromatography , microbiology and biotechnology , bacteria , chemistry , biochemistry , genetics , biology
Objective To evaluate a novel device for its efficacy in removing experimental biofilm from root surfaces and its potential for concomitantly removing/roughening the surface substance. Methods and Materials A novel acrylic rotary device (biofilm remover, BR ) was tested in vitro in three experiments: surface loss, surface roughness [positive controls: Perioset ( PS ) and Proxoshape ( PR )] and biofilm removal [positive controls: ultrasonic ( US ) and PS ]. Surface loss/surface roughness was evaluated for dentin samples instrumented for three 20 s periods. The calcium removed during instrumentation was analysed after each interval and cumulatively, using atomic absorption spectrophotometry ( AAS ). Surface roughness was measured using profilometric analysis. Biofilm removal was evaluated on dentin specimens coated with a 64.5 h 6‐species in vitro formed biofilm, after one 20 s treatment. Surface loss was analysed using anova with Scheffé post hoc test, and surface roughness/biofilm removal was analysed using Mann–Whitney test (all P ≤ 0.05). Results Significantly less substance loss [μg (±1 SD)] was observed with the novel device at all time points, both interval and cumulative (1.0 (±0.5) versus 9.3 (±3.2) PS and 9.9 (±1.9) PR at 60 s). Surface roughness [μm (95% CI )] was significantly lower for BR than for PS and PR [0.00 (−0.01, 0.08) 0.20 (0.16, 0.27) and 0.21 (0.19, 0.24) at 60 s]. Significantly less biofilm bacteria remained after treatment with both BR 4.5 (−0.1, 16.2) and US 1.9 (−0.2, 14.3), compared to PS 52 (27.9, 82.1). Conclusions The novel biofilm remover was less damaging to dentin surfaces, while removing biofilm at least as effectively as devices used in this study.