Cleaning potential of different air abrasive powders and their impact on implant surface roughness

Abstract

Background Implant surface roughness after air abrasive therapy has not been measured precisely in previous research. Debridement with air abrasion facilitates the mechanical removal of bacterial biofilms but may damage implant surfaces on a microscopic level. Purpose This study aimed to investigate the cleaning potential of various air abrasive powders and their effect on titanium implant surfaces. Materials and Methods Twenty implants coated with red ink were inserted into three‐dimensional printed circumferential bone defect models. Treatment was completed with three types of air abrasive powders: sodium bicarbonate (SB), glycine, and erythritol for 60 seconds. Water alone was used as control. The percentage of remaining ink was assessed using digital photography and graphic software. Implant surface topography/roughness was quantified using optical profilometry and examined via scanning electron microscopy. The microscopic analysis was performed at two implant areas: collar (Laser‐Lok surface) and threads. Results The cleaned surfaces (%, mean ± SD) after treatment with SB, glycine, and erythritol accounted for 49.3 ± 3.6%, 33.1 ± 1.2%, and 25.1 ± 0.7%, respectively. Statistically significant differences were found between all groups (P < .001). SB was the only powder that significantly increased the implant roughness (Sa) on both the implant collar (1.53‐2.10 μm) and threads (3.53‐4.20 μm). Regardless of the abrasive powder used, the collar, emerging implant surfaces from the defect base, and surfaces beneath implants threads exhibited more post‐treatment residual ink. Conclusion Large‐sized powder showed the greatest cleaning capacity, but caused more alterations to the implant surface. Glycine and erythritol displayed no significant changes in surface roughness, however, demonstrated a limited ink removal capacity.

The Prevention of Implant Surface Alterations in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Comparison of Three Different Mechanical and Physical Treatments

“…Among the treatments, the 3 W diode laser resulted in minor changes, as already found by other authors [27,28]. The slight decrease of S a values observed with air powder abrasion has also been reported in other studies [29] and may be explained with the rounding of the surface crests. Similarly, the slight increase of S a on the samples treated with the titanium brush can be related to the formation of metal debris.…”

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

“…AP uses an abrasive powder of sodium bicarbonate, calcium phosphate, or the amino acid glycine, which is driven by compressed air to eliminate the biofilm. 72,73 AP treatment efficiently cleans contaminated implant surfaces. 73,74 Tastepe et al 75 evaluated AP treatment as an implant surface cleaning method for peri-implantitis.…”

“…Debridement with air abrasion facilitates the mechanical removal of bacterial biofilms but may damage implant surfaces on a microscopic level. Matsubara et al 72 investigated the cleaning potential of various APs and their effect on titanium implant surfaces. They used three types of APs: sodium bicarbonate, glycine, and erythritol for 60 seconds.…”

Comparison of the effects of air-powder abrasion, chemical decontamination, or their combination in open-flap surface decontamination of implants failed for peri-implantitis: an ex vivo study

“…lower density and hardness and the smaller size of the particles [18]. Sodium bicarbonate larger-sized particles proved to have mechanical removal and impact on implant roughness more significant than glycine small-sized particles [18,28]. Furthermore, also the greater efficacy in restoring biocompatibility of sodium bicarbonate compared with glycine was probably due to the higher ablation power of its harder and larger particles in the removal of the carbon layer produced by the activity of the biofilm [24].…”

“…The different ability of the two powder formulations in removing a biofilm was the rationale at the basis of the sequential use of sodium bicarbonate and glycine [18,28]. Using small after larger powder particles should be helpful to reach the more difficult areas to clean in the rough implants and to increase surface abrasion because the higher solubility potential reduces the presence of undissolved particles in the water-air stream [28].…”