The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instruments through SEM and roughness analysis: manual steel curette, manual titanium curette, ultrasonic steel insert, and ultrasonic peek insert. Forty crowns were made, ten of each type of material. For each material, five crowns were manually instrumented with steel inserts (curette 11-12, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) and titanium (Wingrove 3-4, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) on the lingual and buccal surfaces, respectively, and the other five crowns were instrumented with an ultrasonic peek insert (ICS-IC1, Mectron, Carasco, Italy) on the buccal surface and steel (PS, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) on the lingual surface. At this point, surface roughness analysis was carried out. The data were analyzed with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Therefore, it was decided to conduct two analyses with a Kruskal–Wallis test and Bonferroni post hoc test. Then, the instrumented crowns were analyzed by SEM. The analysis of the data shows that the highest average roughness was within the composite group, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. Significant differences existed between the groups, between the materials, and between the different instruments (p-value < 0.05). In the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, the classic steel insert eliminated the residues of golden finishing. The peek insert created alterations on all tested surfaces. The steel curette did not create particular problems, with the exception of zirconium, where it was possible to observe some scratch lines. Instrumentation with the titanium curette created deeper incisions than the steel curette in the composite and disilicate. The best results came from the ultrasonic steel insert, while the best material appeared to be disilicate.

Professional oral hygiene is fundamental to prevent peri-implant disease. Appropriate instruments should be used in patients with restorations supported by dental implants: they should be effective in deposits removal without damaging the implant components surface. The aim of the present study is to investigate and summarize the results regarding the efficacy of oral hygiene techniques described in the literature in the last 10 years in patients rehabilitated with dental implants not affected by perimplantitis. The present systematic review was conducted according to guidelines reported in the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The focused question was: “Which are the most effective instruments for professional oral hygiene on implants not affected by perimplantitis?”. The initial database search yielded a total of 934 entries found in PubMed®/MEDLINE and Cochrane Library. After full text review and application of the eligibility criteria, the final selection consisted of 19 articles. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Curette, scalers and air polishing were the devices most frequently investigated in the included studies. In particular, glycine powder air polishing appeared to be significantly effective in reducing peri-implant inflammation and plaque around implants. The application of the more recent erythritol powder air polishing also yielded good clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to improve the knowledge on the topic in order to develop standardized protocols and understand the specific indications for different types of implant-supported rehabilitations.