Cleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
File version

Accepted Manuscript (AM)

Author(s)
Matsubara, Victor H
Leong, Bron W
Leong, Marcus JL
Lawrence, Zacharij
Becker, Thomas
Quaranta, Alessandro
Griffith University Author(s)
Primary Supervisor
Other Supervisors
Editor(s)
Date
2019
Size
File type(s)
Location
License
Abstract

Background: 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.

Journal Title

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Conference Title
Book Title
Edition
Volume
Issue
Thesis Type
Degree Program
School
Publisher link
Patent number
Funder(s)
Grant identifier(s)
Rights Statement
Rights Statement

© 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)

Item Access Status
Note
Access the data
Related item(s)
Subject

Dentistry

air abrasion

decontamination

dental implants

peri-implantitis

air abrasion

Persistent link to this record
Citation

Matsubara, 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

Collections