Share Page:

Volume 29 , Issue 2
March/April 2014

Pages 331–337

Cleaning Effectiveness of Implant Prophylaxis Instruments

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

PMID: 24683558
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2524

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.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us