Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review focuses on intrasocket reactive tissue and its impact on extraction socket healing. It summarises the current knowledge about intrasocket reactive tissue from a histopathological and biological perspective and discusses the mechanisms by which residual intrasocket reactive tissue can have a positive or negative effect on healing. Additionally, it provides an overview of the various hand and rotary instruments that are currently used for intrasocket reactive tissue debridement. The review also discusses preserving intrasocket reactive tissue as a socket sealing material and the benefits this may offer. It presents clinical cases where either removal or preservation of intrasocket reactive tissue was adopted following extraction and prior to alveolar ridge preservation. Future studies are needed to investigate the suggested beneficial effects of intrasocket reactive tissue on socket healing outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]