Peri-implantitis cleaning instrumentation influences the integrity of photoactive nanocoatings

Kister, F.; Specht, Olaf; Warkentin, Mareike; Geis-Gerstorfer, J; Rupp, Frank

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2016.10.002

Cited by 7 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike surface morphology which provides a general understanding of the surface profile, surface topology provides information about vertical characteristic and amplitude parameters such as Ra and Rz which can be considered valid indicators of surface roughness . Similar to morphological results, the effect of AA on surface topology was partly dependent on the surface textures, that is, the nonmodified and modified surfaces …”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%

“…After reading the full‐text articles, 10 articles were excluded: three articles due to using the AA in combination with other decontamination methods, one study was not about titanium surface, two articles did not use AA for decontamination, one study was not in English and not published in a peer‐review journal, one study used the AA powder in an antimicrobial solution but did not use the AA device, one study had an in vivo design with decontamination procedures taking place in the beagle dogs, and the full text for one study was not retrieved . The 48 included articles were ultimately processed for data extraction . The summary of the search strategy is depicted in Figure .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding the surface morphology, eight studies reported no or little surface change following application of AA . However, 11 studies reported that AA changed the surface profile by causing crater‐like defects and scratches or by removing the machine marks on the nonmodified surfaces and by beveling the edges on the modified surface .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, AA resulted in a similar (most cases) or rougher profile than plastic curettes and rubber cups. From the 21 included studies, 7 measured surface roughness quantitatively . All these studies reported on Ra value, but only four studies reported on Rz index .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the nonmodified surface, new generations of AA which were applied for less than 60 seconds and at a distance equal to or more than 5 mm did not significantly alter the surface compared with untreated control . One study even reported that high‐pressure AA smoothed the surface .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effects of air abrasive decontamination on titanium surfaces: A systematic review of in vitro studies

Moharrami¹,

Perrotti

Iaculli

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Air abrasion (AA) is one of the decontamination methods that have demonstrated promising results in treating peri‐implant diseases. Purpose This systematic review aimed at evaluating the in vitro effect of AA on surface change, cleaning efficacy, and biocompatibility of titanium surfaces and at comparing it with other decontamination methods. Materials and Methods A comprehensive search was conducted up to April 2018 using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases to identify studies on the decontamination effect of AA. All types of titanium surfaces, abrasive powders, contaminated surfaces, and measuring methods were included. Results Overall, 1502 articles were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts, and carefully reading the full‐texts, 48 articles published between 1989 and 2018 were selected. AA was considered almost safe, particularly for the nonmodified surfaces. Nevertheless, harder powders such as sodium bicarbonate tended to damage the surface more than glycine. AA resulted in surface change similar to plastic curettes and Er: YAG lasers. Regarding the cleaning efficacy, there was no significant difference between glycine and sodium bicarbonate, but different mixtures of calcium phosphate, hydroxyapatite, and erythritol were superior to glycine. AA was superior or equal to all other decontamination methods in cleaning. Regarding biocompatibility, AA was more successful in preserving biocompatibility for noncontaminated surfaces compared with contaminated surfaces and when used with erythritol and osteoinductive powders. Conclusions AA can efficiently remove contamination without serious damage to the surface. The main drawback of the AA method seems to be its limitation in restoring the biocompatibility of the surface.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 62%