TY - JOUR
AU1 - Zipprich, Holger
AU2 - Weigl, Paul
AU3 - Di Gianfilippo, Riccardo
AU4 - Steigmann, Larissa
AU5 - Henrich, Dirk
AU6 - Wang, Hom-Lay
AU7 - Schlee, Markus
AU8 - Ratka, Christoph
AB - ObjectiveTo compare the in vitro decontamination efficacy of two electrolytic cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices.Material and methodsSixty sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) implants were incubated with 2 ml of human saliva and Tryptic Soy Broth solution under continuous shaking for 14 days. Implants were then randomly assigned to one untreated control group (n = 10) and 5 different decontamination modalities: air-abrasive powder (n = 10), diode laser (n = 10), plasma cleaning (n = 10), and two electrolytic test protocols using either potassium iodide (KI) (n = 10) or sodium formate (CHNaO2) (n = 10) solution. Implants were stained for dead and alive bacteria in two standardized measurement areas, observed at fluorescent microscope, and analyzed for color intensity.ResultsAll disinfecting treatment modalities significantly reduced the stained area compared to the untreated control group for both measurement areas (p < 0.001). Among test interventions, electrolytic KI and CHNaO2 treatments were equally effective, and each one significantly reduced the stained area compared to any other treatment modality (p < 0.001). Efficacy of electrolytic protocols was not affected by the angulation of examined surfaces [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): electrolytic cleaning-KI 0.03 ± 0.04 vs. 0.09 ± 0.10; electrolytic cleaning-CHNaO2 0.01 ± 0.01 vs. 0.06 ± 0.08; (p > 0.05)], while air abrasion [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 2.66 ± 0.83 vs. 42.12 ± 3.46 (p < 0.001)] and plasma cleaning [surface angulation 0° vs. 60° (staining %): 33.25 ± 3.01 vs. 39.16 ± 3.15 (p < 0.001)] were.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the present in vitro study, electrolytic decontamination with KI and CHNaO2 was significantly more effective in reducing bacterial stained surface of rough titanium implants than air-abrasive powder, diode laser, and plasma cleaning, regardless of the accessibility of the contaminated implant location.Clinical relevanceComplete bacterial elimination (residual bacteria < 1%) was achieved only for the electrolytic cleaning approaches, irrespectively of the favorable or unfavorable access to implant surface.
TI - Comparison of decontamination efficacy of two electrolyte cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices
JF - Clinical Oral Investigations
DO - 10.1007/s00784-022-04421-0
DA - 2022-06-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/springer-journals/comparison-of-decontamination-efficacy-of-two-electrolyte-cleaning-ppB6SARR1B
SP - 4549
EP - 4558
VL - 26
IS - 6
DP - DeepDyve
ER -