Effects of implant surface mechanical instrumentation methods on peri-implantitis: An

Debridement Decontamination Implant Peri-implantitis

Journal

Journal of dental sciences
ISSN: 2213-8862
Titre abrégé: J Dent Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101293181

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Apr 2022
Historique:
received: 31 07 2021
revised: 20 08 2021
entrez: 27 6 2022
pubmed: 28 6 2022
medline: 28 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Although several mechanical and chemical debridement techniques have been reported for the management of peri-implantitis, there is no consensus on the most effective method at present. This From a total of 15 implants, five each were assigned to one of three decontamination groups (Rotary titanium brush [Ti], tricalcium phosphate air powder abrasive treatment [Air], and titanium ultrasonic scaler [US] groups); the exposed hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated portion was divided into three 1-mm sections (coronal, middle, and apical). The residual-HA of each portion was measured using a digital microscope. The overall percentage of residual HA coating was significantly lower in the US group than in the Ti or Air groups ( Ti and US were more effective for shallow defects, whereas US was more effective for deeper defects.

Sections du résumé

Background/purpose UNASSIGNED
Although several mechanical and chemical debridement techniques have been reported for the management of peri-implantitis, there is no consensus on the most effective method at present. This
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
From a total of 15 implants, five each were assigned to one of three decontamination groups (Rotary titanium brush [Ti], tricalcium phosphate air powder abrasive treatment [Air], and titanium ultrasonic scaler [US] groups); the exposed hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated portion was divided into three 1-mm sections (coronal, middle, and apical). The residual-HA of each portion was measured using a digital microscope.
Results UNASSIGNED
The overall percentage of residual HA coating was significantly lower in the US group than in the Ti or Air groups (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Ti and US were more effective for shallow defects, whereas US was more effective for deeper defects.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35756780
doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.08.018
pii: S1991-7902(21)00209-9
pmc: PMC9201532
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

891-896

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None.

Références

Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jun;30(6):550-558
pubmed: 31009116
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2018 Feb 15;4(1):25-34
pubmed: 29744212
Materials (Basel). 2020 Jun 18;13(12):
pubmed: 32570785
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020 Feb;22(1):96-104
pubmed: 31837107
Periodontol 2000. 2018 Feb;76(1):180-190
pubmed: 29239086
Int J Implant Dent. 2020 Apr 22;6(1):18
pubmed: 32318868
BMC Oral Health. 2017 Nov 28;17(1):137
pubmed: 29183313
Implant Dent. 2016 Jun;25(3):416-26
pubmed: 27213530
Int J Implant Dent. 2020 Mar 25;6(1):12
pubmed: 32211972
Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):155-160
pubmed: 30913111
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jun;30(6):578-587
pubmed: 31022305
Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):177-186
pubmed: 30475243
Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):187-209
pubmed: 30648979
J Periodontol. 2016 Aug;87(8):953-61
pubmed: 26966876
Implant Dent. 2018 Feb;27(1):101-110
pubmed: 29329120
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019 Nov/Dec;34(6):1370-1378
pubmed: 31711078
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Aug;21(4):635-643
pubmed: 31087457
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Feb;28(2):151-155
pubmed: 26799360
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Aug;28(8):1013-1021
pubmed: 27392811
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S286-S291
pubmed: 29926491
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2017 Aug 02;3(4):148-153
pubmed: 29744193
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Jul;26(7):841-50
pubmed: 24641774
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Apr;18(2):161-70
pubmed: 17348880
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jul;25(7):838-42
pubmed: 23551490
J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):292-304
pubmed: 18724857
J Periodontal Res. 2018 Oct;53(5):657-681
pubmed: 29882313
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Sep;20 Suppl 4:216-27
pubmed: 19663967
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29(10):1025-1037
pubmed: 30267445
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Mar;26(3):314-9
pubmed: 24373056
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jun;24(6):666-70
pubmed: 22409152
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Nov;24(11):1238-46
pubmed: 22882522

Auteurs

Motohiro Munakata (M)

Department of Implant Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan.

Akihiro Suzuki (A)

Department of Oral Implantology and Regenerative Dental Medicine, Graduate School of Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.

Kikue Yamaguchi (K)

Department of Implant Dentistry, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan.

Yu Kataoka (Y)

Department of Conservative Dentistry, Division of Biomaterials and Engineering, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan.

Minoru Sanda (M)

Department of Prosthodontics, Showa University School of Dentistry, Tokyo, Japan.

Classifications MeSH