IADR Abstract Archives
An SEM Evaluation of Air Abrasives on the TiUnite® Surface
Objectives: Air-polishing abrasives are becoming increasingly important component of decontamination of implants with peri-implantitis. This study examined the in vitro effect of three commercially available air abrasive powders on the TiUnite® implant surface (a moderately rough, thickened titanium oxide layer with micropores) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Methods: Twenty NobelReplace® Select implants were mounted on a custom jig that travelled at a constant speed and direction passed a fixed air polisher unit with the tip set 5mm from the implant surface. Each implant provided evaluation of one test abrasive or an air-water control (N=5). Three formulations of abrasives were tested: sodium bicarbonate (EMS®, 60-70mm), glycine (EMS®, 60-70mm), and calcium carbonate (KaVo®, 65mm). The center of each of the first three grooves on the implant were evaluated for porosity—defined as the total number of visible pores present in the standardized surface area (100mm2) within each groove at 1000x. The number of visible pores was compared between treatments using an ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test.
Results: Sodium bicarbonate (mean number: 145.1; SD: 4.4) and calcium carbonate formulations (mean number: 20.0; SD: 11.0) treatment resulted in significant reductions in porosity, when compared to the air-water control group (mean number: 205.5; SD: 2.2). The reductions in porosity were associated with visible alterations of the anodized implant surface. Implant surfaces treated with the glycine abrasive powder (mean number: 199.3; SD: 7.7) exhibited porosity similar to the air-water control group.
Conclusions: Sodium bicarbonate and calcium carbonate air abrasives induce significant reductions in the porosity of the TiUnite® implant surface, when compared to glycine or air-water treatment, under the in vitro conditions in this study.
Methods: Twenty NobelReplace® Select implants were mounted on a custom jig that travelled at a constant speed and direction passed a fixed air polisher unit with the tip set 5mm from the implant surface. Each implant provided evaluation of one test abrasive or an air-water control (N=5). Three formulations of abrasives were tested: sodium bicarbonate (EMS®, 60-70mm), glycine (EMS®, 60-70mm), and calcium carbonate (KaVo®, 65mm). The center of each of the first three grooves on the implant were evaluated for porosity—defined as the total number of visible pores present in the standardized surface area (100mm2) within each groove at 1000x. The number of visible pores was compared between treatments using an ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test.
Results: Sodium bicarbonate (mean number: 145.1; SD: 4.4) and calcium carbonate formulations (mean number: 20.0; SD: 11.0) treatment resulted in significant reductions in porosity, when compared to the air-water control group (mean number: 205.5; SD: 2.2). The reductions in porosity were associated with visible alterations of the anodized implant surface. Implant surfaces treated with the glycine abrasive powder (mean number: 199.3; SD: 7.7) exhibited porosity similar to the air-water control group.
Conclusions: Sodium bicarbonate and calcium carbonate air abrasives induce significant reductions in the porosity of the TiUnite® implant surface, when compared to glycine or air-water treatment, under the in vitro conditions in this study.