Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
In Vitro Efficacy of Three Different Nonsurgical Implant Surface Decontamination Methods in Three Different Defect
Purpose:
Assessment of in vitro efficacy of three different nonsurgical implant surface decontamination methods in three peri-implant bone defect simulation models.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 180 implants were allocated to differently angulated (30, 60, and 90 degrees) peri-implant bone defect resin models, each covered by a mucosa mask. All implants were stained with indelible red color and assigned to one of the three defect models. In each simulated bone defect group, 20 implants were decontaminated for 2 minutes with a curette (CUR), sonic scaler (SOSC), or air-powder abrasion device (APA) with glycine powder. Photos were taken from both sides of each implant to measure the percentage of uncleaned implant surface area. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess the implant surface for morphologic damage.
Results:
Among the three defect angulations, a significantly different cleaning efficacy (P < .001) for each treatment method was found (30 degrees: CUR [67.33%], SOSC [62.70%], APA [39.33%]; 60 degrees: CUR [61.59%], SOSC [54.31%], APA [23.91%]; 90 degrees: CUR [66.82%], SOSC [55.77%], APA [28.03%]). SEM did not show any considerable surface damage after APA treatment in comparison with after CUR or SOSC.
Conclusion:
Air-powder abrasion proved to be the most efficient nonsurgical treatment device for each type of defect in this in vitro model with the least noticeable surface change. No decontamination method resulted in complete cleaning of the color remnants on the implant surface.
