Abstract:Background: Peri-implantitis treatment is a very challenging topic to discuss. What is certain is that preventive/supportive therapy plays a key-role in peri-implant tissues' health maintenance and non-surgical implant surface mechanical debridement remains one of the solid pillars in the therapeutic pathway. In this perspective, many surface decontaminating methods have been proposed and tested to remove hard and soft bacterial deposits. The aim of this study was to compare four different commonly used non-surgical implant debridement methods in terms of cleaning potential in vitro, using a peri-implant pocket-simulating model. Methods: Sixty-four dental implants were ink-stained and placed into a simulated peri-implant pocket. Samples were then divided into four groups and treated with different debridement methods: stainless-steel ultrasonic tip (PS), peek-coated ultrasonic tip (PI), sub-gingival air-polishing with erythritol powder (EHX) and sub-gingival air-polishing with glycine powder (GLY). For each treatment group, half of the samples were treated for 5 seconds and the other half for 45 seconds. High-resolution images were taken using a digital microscope and later analyzed with a light processing software for measuring the cleaned area percentage (ink-free). Two different images were captured for every sample: a first image with the implant positioned perpendicular to the microscope lenses (90°) and a second one with the implant placed with a 45° vertical angulation, with the smooth neck towards the ground. Percentage of removed ink was statistically modelled using a generalized linear mixed model with the implant as a random (clustering) factor. Results: A paired comparison between all treatments in terms of debridement potential (cleaned area percentage) was performed. In 5s and with 90° sample angulation EHX/PS comparison showed an odds ratio of 2.75 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 2.90 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.19 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR of 0.56 (P=0.105). With the same sample angulation and 45s treatment time, the OR was 6.97 (P<0.001) for EHX/PS comparison, 0.14 (P<0.001) for PI/EHX comparison, 4.99 (P<0.001) for GLY/PS, 0.19 (P<0.001) for PI/GLY and 0.95 for PI/PS (P =0.989). With 5s of treatment time and 45° sample angulation, EHX/PS comparison shows a 3.19 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/EHX a 0.14 odds ratio (P<0.001), GLY/PS a 3.06 odds ratio (P<0.001), PI/GLY a 0.15 odds ratio (P<0.001) and PI/PS a 0.46 odds ratio (P=0.017). With the same sample angulation but 45s treatment time, EHX/PS comparison produced an odds ratio of 4.90 (P<0.001), PI/EHX an OR of 0.20 (P<0.001), GLY/PS an OR of 8.74 (P<0.001), PI/GLY an OR of 0.11 (P<0.001) and PI/PS an OR 0.96 of (P =0.996). Conclusions: Among the four treatments considered, air-polishing therapy represents the best one in terms of ink removal from the implant surface. Furthermore, increasing the treatment time to 45 seconds, air-polishing resulted considerably more efficient.

Subgingival instrumentation to remove simulated plaque in vitro: influence of operators’ experience and type of instrument

In vitro, clinical, and microbiological evaluation of a linear oscillating device for scaling and root planing

Comparison of the effect of hand instruments, an ultrasonic scaler, and an erbium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet laser on root surface roughness of teeth with periodontitis: a profilometer study

In vitro apical extrusion of debris and instrumentation time following root canal instrumentation with Reciproc and Reciproc Blue instruments and a novel stainless steel rotary system (Gentlefile) versus manual instrumentation

A novel in vitro periodontal pocket model to evaluate the effect of root surface instrumentation on biofilm-epithelial cell interactions

Impact of manual toothbrush design on plaque removal efficacy

Clinical Outcomes of Ultrasonic Subgingival Debridement Combined with Manual Root Planing in Severe Periodontitis

Efficacy of mechanical/physical approaches for implant surface decontamination in non-surgical submarginal instrumentation of peri-implantitis. A systematic review

Subgingival access and artificial plaque removal by a sonic cleaning device

Effect of oral prophylactic instrumentation on the surface texture of all metal restorative materials

Comparison between four different implant surface debridement methods: an in-vitro experimental study

Assessment of the Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Three Different Agents on Periodontally Compromised Tooth: An In Vitro Study

Instrumentation time and effectiveness of hand and rotary files in a prototyped second mandibular primary molar: A micro-CT study

Effect of operators' proficiency level and patients' related factors on possible complications, using a high frequency polyamide sonic intracanal irrigation device: A prospective clinical cohort study

Influence of Operator, Tool, Dental Loupes, and Tooth Position on Enamel Loss and Composite Remnants After Removal of Composite Attachments for Orthodontic Clear Aligners: An Experimental Study Using 3D Profilometry

Clinical evaluation of ultrasonic subgingival debridement versus ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Optical microscopy evaluation of root canal filling removal by beginner operators in posterior teeth

Smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigation techniques in conservatively instrumented root canals

Randomised methodology development study to investigate plaque removal efficacy of manual toothbrushes

Effects of ultrasonic subgingival scaling and root planing with a periodontal endoscope on the root surface

[Efficacy of subgingival scaling of the molars with conventional scalers in vitro]