Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To compare as-received and sterilized micro-implants in order to assess the prospects of reusing them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty micro-implants from a single manufacturing lot were used in the study. Thirty were retrieved from patients after successful service in their mouth and with no signs of failure. The retrieved micro-implants were divided into three groups, according to method of sterilization: autoclave, gamma radiation, or ultraviolet radiation. All groups were subjected to scanning electron microscope analysis for surface morphology assessment. The specimens were immersed in a standard simulated body-fluid solution kept at 37°C in an incubator; the solution was then withdrawn at 24 hours and 30 days to evaluate aluminum and vanadium ion release by atomic absorption spectrophotometer in parts per billion. The micro-implants were then surgically implanted into the tibia of rabbits for a 1-month healing period, and the bone-implant blocks were processed for routine histologic examination. RESULTS: This study revealed that sterilized micro-implants had altered surface topography, different ion release values, and different histologic cell reactions than the as-received micro-implants. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that retrieved self-drilling micro-implants have tip sharpness variations that require correction before insertion by bone drilling. The autoclave-sterilized micro-implants showed better histologic results than micro-implants sterilized by gamma or ultraviolet rays.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
El‐Wassefy et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: