A micromorphological/microbiological pilot study assessing three methods for the maintenance of the implant patient

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of the ultrasonic piezoelectric inserts of EMS Steel Tip A, EMS Peek, and IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E© in reducing peri‐implant bacterial load without compromising the surface of implants during professional oral hygiene in the follow‐up. Materials and methods Thirteen implants were examined (Winsix, Biosafin, Ancona, Italy). The implants were divided into five groups and analyzed with a SEM microscope and microbiological analysis to evaluate the possible modification of structure and the bacterial load reduction. Results The control and A, B, and C test groups were initially contaminated in vitro with Streptococcus mutans. Subsequently, the A, B, and C test groups were treated by an only expert operator in standard conditions. Test groups A, B, and C were inoculated for 3 hr and, furthermore, microbiologically analyzed. Conclusion The gold standard of an implant maintenance is a significant reduction of the bacterial load without becoming aggressive. According to our results, despite the limitations of the study, the authors recommend the least aggressive IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E©, but combined with an antimicrobial agent to reduce the bacterial load, because the IS‐TiP‐STS‐3E© did not show appreciable results versus the EMS Peek in reducing the bacterial load.