Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMatsubara, Victor H
dc.contributor.authorLeong, Bron W
dc.contributor.authorLeong, Marcus JL
dc.contributor.authorLawrence, Zacharij
dc.contributor.authorBecker, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorQuaranta, Alessandro
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-20T02:24:31Z
dc.date.available2019-12-20T02:24:31Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.issn1523-0899
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cid.12875
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/389906
dc.description.abstractBackground: Implant surface roughness after air abrasive therapy has not been measured precisely in previous research. Debridement with air abrasion facilitates the mechanical removal of bacterial biofilms but may damage implant surfaces on a microscopic level. Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the cleaning potential of various air abrasive powders and their effect on titanium implant surfaces. Materials and Methods: Twenty implants coated with red ink were inserted into three-dimensional printed circumferential bone defect models. Treatment was completed with three types of air abrasive powders: sodium bicarbonate (SB), glycine, and erythritol for 60 seconds. Water alone was used as control. The percentage of remaining ink was assessed using digital photography and graphic software. Implant surface topography/roughness was quantified using optical profilometry and examined via scanning electron microscopy. The microscopic analysis was performed at two implant areas: collar (Laser-Lok surface) and threads. Results: The cleaned surfaces (%, mean ± SD) after treatment with SB, glycine, and erythritol accounted for 49.3 ± 3.6%, 33.1 ± 1.2%, and 25.1 ± 0.7%, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found between all groups (P < .001). SB was the only powder that significantly increased the implant roughness (Sa ) on both the implant collar (1.53-2.10 μm) and threads (3.53-4.20 μm). Regardless of the abrasive powder used, the collar, emerging implant surfaces from the defect base, and surfaces beneath implants threads exhibited more post-treatment residual ink. Conclusion: Large-sized powder showed the greatest cleaning capacity, but caused more alterations to the implant surface. Glycine and erythritol displayed no significant changes in surface roughness, however, demonstrated a limited ink removal capacity.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherWiley
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.relation.ispartofjournalClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1105
dc.subject.keywordsair abrasion
dc.subject.keywordsdecontamination
dc.subject.keywordsdental implants
dc.subject.keywordsperi-implantitis
dc.subject.keywordsair abrasion
dc.titleCleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMatsubara, VH; Leong, BW; Leong, MJL; Lawrence, Z; Becker, T; Quaranta, A, Cleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness., Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2019
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-11-24
dc.date.updated2019-12-19T05:02:04Z
dc.description.versionPost-print
gro.rights.copyright© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Cleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, which has been published in final form at 10.1111/cid.12875. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving (http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828039.html)
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorQuaranta, Alex


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record