Removal of simulated biofilm at different implant crown designs with interproximal oral hygiene aids: An in vitro study

Anatomical three-dimensional model with peri-implant defect for in vitro assessment of dental implant decontamination

OBJECTIVES

Access to the implant surface plays a significant role in effective mechanical biofilm removal in peri-implantitis treatment. Mechanical decontamination may also alter the surface topography of the implant, potentially increasing susceptibility to bacterial recolonization. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate a newly developed, anatomically realistic, and adaptable three-dimensional (3D)printed model with a peri-implant bone defect to evaluate the accessibility and changes of dental implant surfaces after mechanical decontamination treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A split model of an advanced peri-implant bone defect was prepared using 3D printing. The function of the model was tested by mechanical decontamination of the exposed surface of dental implants (Standard Implant Straumann AG) coated with a thin layer of colored occlusion spray. Two different instruments for mechanical decontamination were used. Following decontamination, the implants were removed from the split model and photographed. Image analysis and fluorescence spectroscopy were used to quantify the remaining occlusion spray both in terms of area and total amount, while scanning electron microscopy and optical profilometry were used to analyze alteration in the implant surface morphology.

RESULTS

The 3D model allowed easy placement and removal of the dental implants without disturbing the implant surfaces. Qualitative and quantitative assessment of removal of the occlusion spray revealed differences in the mechanism of action and access to the implant surface between tested instruments. The model permitted surface topography analysis following the decontamination procedure.

CONCLUSION

The developed 3D model allowed a realistic simulation of decontamination of implant surfaces with colored occlusion spray in an advanced peri-implant defect. 3D printing allows easy adaptation of the model in terms of the shape and location of the defect. The model presents a valuable tool for in vitro investigation of the accessibility and changes of the implant surface after mechanical and chemical decontamination.

Mechanical plaque removal in step-1 of care

Maintaining a regular oral hygiene routine is essential for taking care of our mouths, ensuring healthy teeth, and achieving fresh breath. Patient education on oral hygiene is an important component of their overall treatment. Firstly, patients should be informed about the direct connection between bacteria in dental plaque and oral diseases. It is important for patients to understand that these conditions can be treated, but the success of treatment greatly depends on their level of oral hygiene. This journey begins by selecting the appropriate toothbrush and mastering the correct brushing technique to effectively remove dental plaque while avoiding any potential damage to the gums. In addition to toothbrushes, there are other devices available for comprehensive dental cleaning, such as floss, interdental sticks, interdental brushes, and oral irrigators. These aids are particularly beneficial for eliminating dental plaque from hard-to-reach areas. Moreover, tongue brushing or tongue scraping can effectively reduce breath odor and tongue coating. Currently, self-care recommendations for dental implants are primarily based on existing knowledge regarding natural teeth cleaning. Evidence-based recommendations are derived from comprehensive systematic evaluation of various oral hygiene aids.

Effects of crown contour on artificial biofilm removal efficacy with interdental cleaning aids: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of various interdental cleaning aids for artificial biofilm removal on different implant-supported crown designs.

METHODS

Mandibular models with missing first molar were fabricated and installed with single implant analogs and loaded with crowns of different designs (concave, straight, and convex). Artificial biofilm was made with occlusion spray. Thirty volunteers (periodontists, dental hygienists, and laypersons) were asked to clean the interproximal areas. The crowns were unscrewed and photographed in a standardized setting. The outcome was measured by the cleaning ratio which represents the cleaned surfaces in relation to the area of the tested surface.

RESULTS

A significant difference in favor of concave crown (p < .001) on the basal surface was cleaned by all tools, except the water flosser. There was evidence of an overall effect of "cleaning tool," "surface," and "crown design" (p < .0001) except for the "participant" factor. The mean cleaning ratio for each cleaning tool and overall combined surfaces were (in%): dental floss: 43.02 ± 23.93, superfloss: 42.51 ± 25.92, electric interspace brush: 36.21 ± 18.78, interdental brush: 29.10 ± 15.95, and electric water flosser: 9.72 ± 8.14. Dental floss and superfloss were significantly better (p < .05) than other tools in removing plaque.

CONCLUSIONS

Concave crown contour had the greatest artificial biofilm removal, followed by straight and convex crowns at the basal surface. Dental floss and superfloss were the most effective interdental cleaning devices for artificial biofilm removal. None of the tested cleaning devices were able to completely remove the artificial biofilm from the interproximal/basal surfaces.

Effectiveness of Super Floss and Water Flosser in Plaque Removal for Patients Undergoing Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of super floss and water flosser in plaque removal for patients undergoing orthodontic treatment.

Methods

A single-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel clinical trial with a split-mouth protocol was conducted on young adult orthodontic patients who were recruited from Riyadh Specialized Dental Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The type of floss used was randomly assigned to each side of the oral cavity; Super-Floss® (Oral-B) was used on one side, while the Waterpik® water flosser was used on the other. Patients' plaque level was assessed using Rustogi et al. modified navy plaque index (RMNPI) at baseline and immediately after cleaning.

Results

A total of 62 subjects were screened; however, only 34 subjects were enrolled in the study with an equal number of males and females. Overall, the plaque score was significantly reduced from 0.56 ± 0.35 to 0.13 ± 0.26 in the super floss group and from 0.61 ± 0.35 to 0.13 ± 0.28 in the water flosser group. There was no significant difference between the mean difference of super floss and water flosser (p=0.951). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between both groups in terms of the preintervention plaque score (p=0.379). The water flosser had a greater effect size on plaque removal compared to super floss on distal interproximal surface of the molar tooth with a mean difference of (−0.21, 95% CI: 00.37 to −0.04, p=0.033).

Conclusions

The use of super floss or water flosser as interproximal aids for plaque removal in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment are both effective. Trial registration. ISRCTN, ISRCTN83875016. Registered 12 September 2021-retrospectively registered, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN83875016.

Patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation

Objectives

To assess patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power‐driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation.

Material & Methods

In the present prospective cohort study 24 periodontitis patients under regular supportive periodontal therapy used daily 2 generations of a power‐driven water flosser (Sonicare AirFloss [SAF] and Sonicare AirFloss Ultra [SAFU]) for 12 weeks each. Patients were instructed to position the nozzle interproximally from the buccal aspect at each interproximal space. Patients' opinion was assessed by a questionnaire and interproximal bleeding on probing (BoP) was recorded.

Results

Overall satisfaction with SAF/SAFU was rated high, by about 80% of the patients. About 66% of the patients preferred SAF/SAFU compared to their previous interdental cleaning device and indicated that they would continue using SAF/SAFU after the study; none of the patients reported any discomfort or pain. Compared to only tooth brushing, daily use of SAF/SAFU caused a significant reduction of interproximal BoP values, which were well maintained over 6 months; that is, BoP at interproximal buccal and oral sites (pooled), as well as at interproximal buccal and oral sites separately, was proportionately reduced by 29.1%, 41.2%, and 24.8%, respectively (pooled: p = 0.027; buccal sites: p = 0.030; oral sites: p = 0.030).

Conclusion

Patients were very fond of the power‐driven water flossers tested herein, and daily use of the devices for 6 months (i.e., each device was used for 3 months) resulted in a significant reduction of gingival inflammation interproximally.

Pilot Study on the Use of a Laser-Structured Double Diamond Electrode (DDE) for Biofilm Removal from Dental Implant Surfaces

No proper treatment option for peri-implantitis exists yet. Based on previous studies showing the in vitro effectiveness of electrochemical disinfection using boron-doped diamond electrodes, novel double diamond electrodes (DDE) were tested here. Using a ceramic carrier and a laser structuring process, a clinically applicable electrode array was manufactured. Roughened metal discs (n = 24) made from Ti-Zr alloy were exposed to the oral cavities of six volunteers for 24 h in order to generate biofilm. Then, biofilm removal was carried out either using plastic curettes and chlorhexidine digluconate or electrochemical disinfection. In addition, dental implants were contaminated with ex vivo multispecies biofilm and disinfected using DDE treatment. Bacterial growth and the formation of biofilm polymer were determined as outcome measures. Chemo-mechanical treatment could not eliminate bacteria from roughened surfaces, while in most cases, a massive reduction of bacteria and biofilm polymer was observed following DDE treatment. Electrochemical disinfection was charge- and time-dependent and could also not reach complete disinfection in all instances. Implant threads had no negative effect on DDE treatment. Bacteria exhibit varying resistance to electrochemical disinfection with Bacillus subtilis, Neisseria sp., Rothiamucilaginosa, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, and Streptococcus mitis surviving 5 min of DDE application at 6 V. Electrochemical disinfection is promising but requires further optimization with respect to charge quantity and application time in order to achieve disinfection without harming host tissue.

Randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of splinting crowns on short implants in the mandible 3 years after loading

OBJECTIVE

To compare the radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters of splinted and non-splinted fixed dental prostheses on short implants in the posterior region of the lower jaw 3 years after loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty patients, 15 female and five males, with uni- or bilateral free-end situations in the mandible participated in the study. Two short implants (7 mm) in the posterior mandible were placed and patients were randomized to receive splinted (n = 11) or non-splinted (n = 13) cemented crowns. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was assessed on radiographs taken with customized positioning jigs at baseline, 1 and 3 years after loading. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured. (ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT03558347).

RESULTS

After 3-year survival rate of altogether 48 implants was 100% for both groups. Success rate (according to Papaspyridakos, Chen, Singh, Weber, & Gallucci, 2012) was 84.6% for non-splinted and 86.4% for splinted implants. At restoration level survival rate was 100% for both groups. Marginal bone level changes showed mean gain of 0.3 ± 0.8 mm for non-splinted and 0.1 ± 0.5 mm for splinted implants 3 years after loading. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in PI, GI, PD, BOP, and marginal bone loss between both groups (p > .05).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study it can be concluded that splinting crowns on short implants neither seems to affect the amount of marginal bone loss nor peri-implant health 3 years after loading.