The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS
This highly regarded, frequently cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy, compiles research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, and new developments in reconstructive dentistry and implant techniques. Regular features include “Current Issues Forum,” which presents opinions of invited experts on controversial issues, and “Literature Review,” which keeps readers informed about implant-related publications.
Petra Schmage, Prof Dr Med Dent/Fisnik Kahili, Dr Med Dent/Ibrahim Nergiz, Prof Dr Med Dent/Thomas M. Scorziello, MS, DMD, MS/Ursula Platzer, Prof Dr Med Dent/Peter Pfeiffer, Prof Dr Med Dent
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cleaning effectiveness of implant prophylaxis instruments on polished and acid-etched implant surfaces.
Materials and Methods: Biofilm layers of Streptococcus mutans were grown on a total of 80 titanium disks; 40 disks were polished and 40 were acid-etched. Five disks of each surface were cleaned using each of seven implant prophylaxis instruments: (1) manual plastic curette, (2) manual carbon fiber–reinforced plastic (CFRP) curette, (3) sonic-driven prophylaxis brush, (4) rotating rubber cup with prophylaxis paste, (5) sonic-driven polyether ether ketone (PEEK) plastic tip, (6) ultrasonic-driven PEEK plastic tip, and (7) air polishing with amino acid (glycine) powder. Ten disks (five of each surface type) served as controls. After cleaning, the surfaces with remaining bacteria were assessed by light microscopy. Statistical analyses of the results were performed with one-way and two-way analyses of variance with Bonferroni-Dunn multiple comparisons post hoc analysis (α .05).
Results: The cleaning effectiveness of the plastic curette was significantly lower than those of all machine-driven instruments on the polished surface. Significantly lower cleaning effectiveness occurred with the CFRP curette compared to the prophylaxis brush and to both oscillating PEEK plastic tips on the polished surface. The rubber cup provided less cleaning effectiveness compared to the ultrasonic PEEK plastic tip and air polishing on the acid-etched surface. Superior results, with less than 4% of the biofilm remaining, were obtained for both oscillating PEEK plastic tips and air polishing on both implant surfaces. The cleaning ability of the prophylaxis brush, rubber cup, and ultrasonic PEEK plastic tip differed significantly between both surface structures.
Conclusions: Cleaning effectiveness, ie, less than 4% of the biofilm remaining, was not observed with all tested implant prophylaxis instruments. The cleaning ability of the devices depended on the implant surface structure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:331–337. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2524