Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 9, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Mechanical Inter-Dental Devices Around Single Implant Prosthetic Crowns:
Lorenzo Bevilacqua1, Simone Poncato2, Antonietta Scarazzato2
1Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Stomatology, Maggiore Hospital in Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Objectives:
The aim of the study was to analyse the effectiveness of some interproximal tools to remove bacterial biofilm on implant-prosthesis rehabilitations with different morphological characteristics.
Methods:
3 temporary crowns made by polymethylmethacrylate resin with different emergency profiles (20°, 30° and 40°) screwed onto an implant placed on a resin model at different implant depth relative to bone crest (bone level, subcresal at 1 mm, supracrestal at 1 mm). After coating surfaces with a contact detection spray, the screwed crowns were cleaned with different interproximal tools: the Oral-B Super FlossTM, the TePe Bridges & Implant Floss, the cylindrical brush TePe Original, the conical brush GUM TRAV-LER and the TePe EasyPickTM soft pick. At the end of each use the crowns were photographed and analysed using TextCompare software. For each tool, five measurements were taken per interproximal surface. The data were analysed statistically.
Results:
All the tools were effective in reducing the interproximal plaque. Lower results were obtained by the TePe EasyPickTM soft pick (min-max cleaned surface 47%-68%). In implant-prosthesis with emergence angles below 30° the interproximal brushes were more efficient (cleaned area min-max 74%-75%), while with greater angles implant floss was more effective (cleaned area min-max 73%-76%).
Conclusion:
Brushes for smaller emergence profiles and subcrestal implants and floss for crowns with larger emergence profiles and supracrestal implants are recommended.
