In vitro study compares cleaning techniques for effective stain removal on dental implants, suggesting electrochemical methods may be better.
Numerous chemical and physical surface decontamination methods are used in clinical practice for implant surface decontamination, which constitutes the most critical step in the management of peri-implantitis. The aim of this study was to compare, in vitro, the efficacy of the electrolytic cleaning device GalvoSurge (GalvoSurge, GalvoSurge Dental AG, Widnau, Switzerland) with that of an air-abrasive AIRFLOW unit (AIRFLOW, Master PiezonVR, EMS Electro Medical Systems, Herrliberg, Switzerland). Thirty-two SLA-surfaced dental implants were allocated to two groups (n = 16) and contaminated with permanent ink, after which they were placed into jaw models representing two different defect configurations. After treatment, implants were photographed and, using ImageJ, the residual stain area/percentage within a 4 mm region apical to the implant neck was calculated. Surface topography was further evaluated by SEM and EDS. In the two-way analysis of variance, the effect of the decontamination method was statistically significant. The GalvoSurge group exhibited a lower residual stain percentage than AIRFLOW (overall 28.47 ± 10.13 vs. 37.14 ± 9.60; p = 0.019). This difference was independent of defect type (p > 0.05). These findings indicate that electrochemical cleaning via galvanic current may be more effective, under in vitro conditions, for stain removal and surface decontamination; however, they also demonstrate that residual contamination could not be completely eliminated irrespective of the method.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Özay et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: