LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 13 , Issue 6
November/December 1998

Pages 845850


Clinical and Microbiologic Effects of Chemical Versus Mechanical Cleansing in Professional Supportive Implant Therapy

Hans Strooker, DDS, Sophia Rohn, Arie J. Va


PMID: 9857596

The aim of the present study was to compare the cleansing properties of mechanical supportive care for dental implants with the use of an etching gel. Sixteen patients underwent a 5-month clinical trial with monthly recalls. These patients, wearing maxillary complete dentures and mandibular overdentures supported by a bar device on 4 implants, were treated in a split-mouth study design. Test and control therapy were randomly assigned to left and right sides of the mandible. At the test side, 35% phosphoric etching gel (pH 1) was applied in the peri-implant sulcus. After 1 minute, the sulcus was thoroughly rinsed with a water spray for approximately 15 seconds per implants. Control therapy consisted of supra- and subgingival debridement using carbon fiber curettes and a rubber cup. Plaque, calculus, probing pocket depth, and modified Gingival Index were determined before each treatment. Microbiologic evaluation was performed at baseline, 1 month later, and 5 months later, just before and immediately after each treatment. Per treatment and per assessment, the mean scores of all clinical parameters were calculated for each patient. The number of colony-forming units was used as the primary efficacy variable in the analysis of microbiologic data. At baseline, no differences between test and control sites were observed for any of the clinical parameters. The mean Gingival Index and the mean probing pocket depth were reduced over the 5-month period. The mean reduction in Gingival Index at the test sites proved to be significantly larger at the control sites (P = .03). Both treatment modalities resulted in an instant reduction of the number of colony-forming units, where the reduction by chemical cleaning was larger (P < .05). This short-term study employing a high recall frequency indicates that local application of 35% phosphoric acid gel can be as effective as conventional mechanical supportive therapy. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 1998;13:845850) Key words: acid gel, implant, maintenance


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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help