Premium
In Vitro Studies on the Effect of Cleaning Methods on Different Implant Surfaces
Author(s) -
Augthun Michael,
Tinschert Joachim,
Huber Anja
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
journal of periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.036
H-Index - 156
eISSN - 1943-3670
pISSN - 0022-3492
DOI - 10.1902/jop.1998.69.8.857
Subject(s) - materials science , implant , abrasive , scanning electron microscope , curette , silicone , sodium hypochlorite , fixture , chlorhexidine , dentistry , biomedical engineering , composite material , medicine , surgery , chemistry , mechanical engineering , organic chemistry , engineering
T he effect of specific cleaning procedures was examined on the surfaces of 3 implant types with different coatings and shapes (plasma sprayed [PS]; hydroxyapatite coated [HA] implants; and smooth titanium surface screws) using a scanning electron microscope. Each implant was treated for 60 seconds per instrument with one of 6 different hygiene measures: plastic curet, metal curet, diamond polishing device, ultrasonic sealer, air‐powder‐water spray with sodium hydrocarbonate solution, and chlorhexidine 0.1% solution rinse. The air‐powder‐abrasive system, chlorhexidine rinse, and curettage with a plastic instrument caused little or no surface damage in all but the hydroxyapatite‐coated fixtures. Therefore, these 3 methods were tested to determine their cleaning efficacy in a second clinical study, which did not include the HA‐coated fixture. Two implants were placed on the facial aspects of both upper molar regions using individual acrylic plates. Thus, 2 fixtures on each side were examined in each patient. The examination revealed that only the sodium hydrocarbonate spray yielded a clean fixture without damage to the implant surface. In a third stage, which imitated the clinical procedure of the second approach, the cell growth of mousefibroblasts on implant surfaces was examined after cleaning the surface with plastic sealer and the air‐abrasive system, which represents the least damaging and most effective methods. In contrast to the implant surfaces treated with plastic scalers, mostly vital cells were found on implants sprayed with the air‐abrasive system. J Periodontol 1998;69:857–864 .