ABSTRACT
Background
The objective of this study was to evaluate titanium decontamination after different protocols while assessing changes in surface roughness, chemical composition, and wettability.
Methods
96 smooth (S) and 96 minimally rough (R) titanium microimplants were used. Pristine microimplants were reserved for negative control (S‐nC/R‐nC,n = 9), while the remaining microimplants were incubated in Escherichia coli culture. Non‐decontaminated microimplants were used as positive control (S‐pC/R‐pC,n = 3). The other microimplants were divided into 7 different decontamination protocols (12 S/R per group): 24% EDTA (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHL), gauze soaked in 2% chlorhexidine (GCHL), gauze soaked in ultrapure water (GMQ), scaling (SC), titanium brush (TiB) and implantoplasty (IP). Contaminated areas were assessed by scanning electron microscope images, chemical composition by energy dispersive X‐Ray spectroscopy, wettability by meniscus technique and roughness by an optical profiler.
Results
Higher residual bacteria were observed in R‐pC compared to S‐pC (p<0.0001). When comparing S and R with their respective pC groups, the best results were obtained with GCHL, SC, TiB and IP, with no difference between these protocols (p>0.05). Changes in surface roughness were observed after all treatments, with S/R‐IP presenting the smoother and a less hydrophilic surface (p<0.05). Apart from IP protocol, all the other groups presented a more hydrophilic surface in R than in S microimplants (p<0.003). All decontamination protocols resulted in a lower percentage of superficial Ti when compared to S/R‐nC (p<0.002).
Conclusions
All decontamination protocols resulted in changes in roughness, wettability, and chemical composition, but GCHL, SC, TiB an IP presented the best decontamination outcomes.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
from
https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/JPER.20-0324?af=R
No comments:
Post a Comment