Cleaning Effectiveness of Implant Prophylaxis Instruments
Cleaning Effectiveness of Implant Prophylaxis Instruments
复制标题
DOI：
10.11607/jomi.2524
复制
发表时间：
2014-03-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Pfeiffer, Peter
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Schmage, Petra;Kahili, Fisnik;Pfeiffer, Peter
目的：本研究的目的是评价种植体预防器械对抛光和酸蚀种植体表面的清洁效果。材料和方法：在80块钛片上培养变形链球菌生物膜层，40片进行抛光处理，40片进行酸蚀处理。使用7种种植体预防器械各清洁表面5个圆盘：(1)手动塑料刮刀，(2)手动碳纤维增强塑料(CFRP)刮刀，(3)声波驱动的预防刷子，(4)装有预防糊剂的旋转橡皮杯，(5)超声波驱动的聚醚醚酮(PEEK)塑料喷嘴，(6)超声驱动的PEEK塑料喷嘴，(7)氨基酸(甘氨酸)粉末的空气抛光。10个圆盘(每种表面类型5个)作为对照。清洗后，对残留细菌的表面进行光镜检查。结果的统计分析采用单因素方差分析和双向方差分析，采用Bonferroni-Dunn多重比较后组分析(α=0.05)。结果：塑料刮刀对磨光表面的清洗效果明显低于所有机动式器械。与预防性刷子和抛光表面上摆动的PEEK塑料尖端相比，使用CFRP刮刀的清洁效率显著降低。与超声波PEEK塑料喷嘴和酸蚀表面的空气抛光相比，橡胶杯提供的清洁效果较差。在两种种植体表面，振荡PEEK塑料尖端和空气抛光都获得了较好的效果，生物膜残留率不到4%。预防性刷子、橡皮杯和超声波PEEK塑料尖端的清洁能力在这两种表面结构之间有显著差异。结论：所有测试的种植体预防器械都没有观察到清洁效果，即不到4%的生物膜残留量。装置的清洁能力取决于种植体表面结构。
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 (alpha = .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.