Clinical evaluation of non-surgical cleaning modalities on titanium dental implants during maintenance care: a 1-year follow-up on prosthodontic superstructures

Efficacy and safety of erythritol air-polishing in implant dentistry: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Professional oral hygiene is essential to prevent peri-implant disease. Appropriate instruments should be employed for implant-supported restorations: they should effectively remove deposits without damaging dental implant surface. The aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of erythritol air-polishing in implant-supported rehabilitations, compared to alternative hygienic techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The guidelines reported in the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were employed for this systematic review. The focused question was: 'what is the effect of erythritol air-polishing on dental implant surfaces regarding its cleansing efficacy and/or safety?' The final online search was conducted on 13 August 2023; MEDLINE-PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were employed. Comparative in vitro or in vivo original studies were included.

RESULTS

The initial database search yielded 128 entries; the final selection comprised 15 articles. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS), the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, GRADE method. Ultrasonic scaling with PEEK tips, glycine air-polishing and cold atmospheric plasma were the devices most frequently compared to erythritol powder in the included studies. Erythritol air-polishing appeared to be significantly more effective in reducing biofilm compared to other treatments, without causing any significant damage to the implant surface and peri-implant tissues, promoting a good biological response.

CONCLUSION

Erythritol air-polishing showed promising results for professional oral hygiene in implant-supported restorations. According to this systematic review, it is effective and safe for removing biofilm from titanium dental implants.

A Review of Bacterial Colonization on Dental Implants With Various Hygiene Instruments

Peri-implant diseases can still develop despite oral hygiene practices being maintained. Consequently, regular debridement must be carried out to ensure the implant is sustained. This review evaluated bacterial colonization on implants following the use of different hygiene instruments. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases for articles published from 2012 to 2022. A total of 19 full-text papers were selected. The number of bacteria colonized was most commonly evaluated with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or by colony-forming unit (CFU) counts, crystal violet assays, plaque index, probing depth, bleeding on probing, turbidity test, and live-dead assays. Rubber cup polishing with an abrasive paste showed a significantly greater reduction in biofilm formation compared with air abrasion with glycine powder, while the air abrasion treatment was found to be more efficient than piezoelectric, carbon, and stainless steel scalers. Surface treatment with Er, Cr: YSGG laser, and Er: YAG laser resulted in statistically significant superior dental biofilm removal compared with titanium curettes and photodynamic therapy. Air abrasion, plastic curette, titanium curette, and ultrasonic scaler showed no significant differences in bacterial colonization, but air abrasion and plastic curette were safer for zirconia implant decontamination. Furthermore, the titanium brush showed better results in decontaminating the implant surface than the Er: YAG laser. Although no single instrument or method could be considered as offering a gold standard in treating peri-implant diseases, the use of air abrasion with glycine powder, laser therapies, rubber cup polishing with an abrasive paste, and a titanium brush had high levels of cleaning efficacy and acceptance by patients.

Efficacy of air polishing in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments in supportive periodontal therapy and implant maintenance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is the key for a stable periodontal health following active treatment. Likewise, implant maintenance is crucial following implant placement. This systematic review aimed to assess clinical outcomes, patients' perception, and cost-effectiveness of repeated periodontal therapy with air polishing devices (APDs) in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments (conventional interventions) in SPT and implant maintenance.

METHODS

Electronic search for randomised controlled clinical trials with minimum 6 months follow-up for SPT and implant maintenance programme was conducted for data published from 01 January 2000 to 30 April 2020 using multiple databases and hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2).

RESULTS

A total of 823 articles were screened. 4 SPT and 2 implant maintenance studies were eligible for inclusion. For SPT, repeated APDs interventions revealed no statistically significant difference when compared to the conventional interventions (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.11 mm, p = 0.08). Likewise, no statistical difference was noted in terms of percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. APDs were associated with lower pain score (based on Visual Analogue Scale) and higher patient acceptance in SPT studies. For implant maintenance, APDs resulted in reduction in PPD and percentage of BOP. However, CAL gain was comparable between the two groups. In terms of patient reported outcomes, no implant maintenance studies recorded any forms of patient reported outcomes. In addition, no studies reported on economic evaluation of APDs in both SPT and implant maintenance.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, repeated subgingival debridement using APDs in SPT resulted in similar clinical outcomes but better patients' comfort when compared to the conventional interventions. For implant maintenance, there is limited evidence to show that repeated application of APDs leads to improved clinical outcomes when compared to conventional treatments.

Microbial Biofilm Decontamination on Dental Implant Surfaces: A Mini Review

Introduction

After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead to implant failure leading to peri-implantitis and loss of supporting bone, which may eventually lead to failure of implant. Surface chemistry of the implant and lack of cleanliness on the part of the patient are related to peri-implantitis. The only way to get rid of this infection is decontamination of dental implants.

Objective

This systematic review intended to study decontamination of microbial biofilm methods on titanium implant surfaces used in dentistry.

Methods

The electronic databases Springer Link, Science Direct, and PubMed were explored from their inception until December 2020 to identify relevant studies. Studies included had to evaluate the efficiency of new strategies either to prevent formation of biofilm or to treat matured biofilm on dental implant surfaces.

Results and Discussion

In this systematic review, 17 different groups of decontamination methods were summarized from 116 studies. The decontamination methods included coating materials, mechanical cleaning, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy, air polishing, anodizing treatment, radiation, sonication, thermal treatment, ultrasound treatment, chemical treatment, electrochemical treatment, antimicrobial drugs, argon treatment, and probiotics.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that most of the decontamination methods were effective in preventing the formation of biofilm and in decontaminating established biofilm on dental implants. This narrative review provides a summary of methods for future research in the development of new dental implants and decontamination techniques.

Adjunctive air-polishing with erythritol in nonsurgical periodontal therapy: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed to investigate if the adjunctive use of erythritol air-polishing powder applied with the nozzle-system during subgingival instrumentation (SI) has an effect on the outcome of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with moderate to severe periodontitis.

METHODS

Fourty-two individuals with periodontitis received nonsurgical periodontal therapy by SI without (controls, n = 21) and with adjunctive air-polishing using nozzle + erythritol powder (test, n = 21). They were analyzed for the clinical variables BOP (primary outcome at six months), probing depth (PD), attachment level, four selected microorganisms and two biomarkers at baseline, before SI as well as three and six months after SI. Statistical analysis included nonparametric tests for intra- and intergroup comparisons.

RESULTS

In both groups, the clinical variables PD, attachment level and BOP significantly improved three and six months after SI. The number of sites with PD ≥ 5 mm was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group after six months. At six months versus baseline, there were significant reductions of Tannerella forsythia and Treponema denticola counts as well as lower levels of MMP-8 in the test group.

CONCLUSIONS

Subgingival instrumentation with adjunctive erythritol air-polishing powder does not reduce BOP. But it may add beneficial effects like reducing the probing depth measured as number of residual periodontal pocket with PD ≥ 5 mm when compared with subgingival instrumentation only.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The adjunctive use of erythritol air-polishing powder applied with the nozzle-system during SI may improve the clinical outcome of SI and may reduce the need for periodontal surgery. Trial registration The study was retrospectively registered in the German register of clinical trials, DRKS00015239 on 6th August 2018, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL .

Ultrasonic vs Drill Implant Site Preparation: Post-Operative Pain Measurement Through VAS, Swelling and Crestal Bone Remodeling: A Randomized Clinical Study

Background: Piezosurgery is a surgical procedure that is able to perform osteotomies by a micrometric and selective cut of the bone tissue. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate two different techniques; an ultrasonic device, and a drill approach for implant site preparation. Methods: A total of fifty patients were recruited for the randomized clinical trial to receive dental implants for fixed prosthetic restoration in the posterior mandible and were allotted to two groups. In Group A the implant site was prepared following a drilling technique, while in Group B the implant site was prepared using an ultrasonic device; moreover, the operative duration was recorded. Postoperative pain and swelling were evaluated at 1, 2, 4, and 6 days. The crestal bone resorption was measured at 3 months from implant placement by a three-dimensional tomography evaluation. Results: The findings suggest that osteotomies performed by an ultrasonic device cause less pain and swelling. On the other hand, the piezoelectric preparation was characterized by a significative increase in the operative time. No statistical differences in crestal bone resorption were evident in the two different approaches. Conclusions: According to the outcome of the study, ultrasonic implant bed preparation can be used with success in implantology and could be considered a suitable alternative to traditional drilling techniques for dental fixture placement.