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

Marco Lollobrigida, Lorenzo Fortunato, Giorgio Serafini, Giulia Mazzucchi, Giuseppina Bozzuto, Agnese Molinari, Emanuele Serra, Francesca Menchini, Iole Vozza and Alberto De Biase
Additional contact information
Marco Lollobrigida: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Lorenzo Fortunato: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Giorgio Serafini: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Giulia Mazzucchi: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Giuseppina Bozzuto: National Centre of Drug Research and Evaluation, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy
Agnese Molinari: National Centre of Drug Research and Evaluation, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy
Emanuele Serra: Sustainability Department, ENEA, Casaccia Research Center, 00123 Rome, Italy
Francesca Menchini: Energy Technology Department, ENEA, Casaccia Research Center, 00123 Rome, Italy
Iole Vozza: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Alberto De Biase: Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 8, 1-12

Abstract: The surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is currently based on the removal of biofilms from the implant surface by primary means of mechanical and physical treatments. However, such approaches often determine some alterations of the implant surface with detrimental effects on re-osseointegration. This study aims to evaluate the effects of four different mechanical and physical treatments on titanium samples with moderately rough surface. Air powder abrasion (AP) with glycine powder, a titanium brush (TB) and a diode laser at 3 W (L3) and 4 W (L4) were tested. Surface morphology, roughness and chemical composition were then assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), white light interferometer and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), respectively. The microscopic analysis revealed significant alterations in surface morphology on TB samples, while AP and L3 had only a minor or null impact. L4 samples revealed signs of overheating due to the excessive power. Nevertheless, the overall roughness of the samples was not significantly altered in terms of roughness parameters. Similarly, surface chemical composition was not significantly affected by the treatments. Among the treatments tested in this study, air powder abrasion with glycine powder and 3 W diode laser had the lowest impact on surface physicochemical properties.

Keywords: peri-implantitis; implant decontamination; peri-implantitis treatment; peri-implantitis therapy; mechanical treatments; dental implants (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2624/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/8/2624/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:8:p:2624-:d:344357

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().