AIM: To evaluate surface roughness alterations at the smooth neck of dental implants after the use of eight different prophylactic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 tissue level implants (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were used for the present investigation. The smooth collar of each implant was divided into two segments, each treated with one of eight cleaning procedures: use of a rubber cup (RCZ) or a brush (BZ) combined with an abrasive paste containing zirconium or a paste derived from perlite (RCP, BP); use of 2 composite resin burs reinforced by zirconium glass fibers (F1, F2); and use of an air-polishing system with glycine powder and two power settings (AP1, AP2). The qualitative alterations were recorded by means of a laser profilometer and the mean roughness (Ra ) and mean roughness profile depth (Rz ) were reported. Twenty untreated surfaces were used as controls. RESULTS: The implant collars treated with RCZ (Ra = 0.33 μm, Rz = 2.43 μm) or BZ (Ra = 0.30 μm, Rz = 3.70 μm) yielded the highest roughness values, followed by the surfaces treated with RCP (Ra = 0.28 μm, Rz = 2.02 μm), with BP (Ra = 0.25 μm, Rz = 2.16 μm) and by the use of F1 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.22 μm) and F2 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.04 μm). The lowest roughness values were observed in the AP1 (Ra = 0.23 μm, Rz = 1.60 μm) and AP2 (Ra = 0.16 μm, Rz = 1.06 μm) group, respectively. Implant collars treated with AP2 yielded statistically significantly lower (P = 0.01) Rz values compared with untreated surfaces. CONCLUSION: All tested procedures did not increase implant surface roughness significantly. Treatment with an air-powder abrasive system at high-pressure setting resulted in a smoothening of the implant collar surface.
AIM: To evaluate surface roughness alterations at the smooth neck of dental implants after the use of eight different prophylactic procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 tissue level implants (Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were used for the present investigation. The smooth collar of each implant was divided into two segments, each treated with one of eight cleaning procedures: use of a rubber cup (RCZ) or a brush (BZ) combined with an abrasive paste containing zirconium or a paste derived from perlite (RCP, BP); use of 2 composite resin burs reinforced by zirconium glass fibers (F1, F2); and use of an air-polishing system with glycine powder and two power settings (AP1, AP2). The qualitative alterations were recorded by means of a laser profilometer and the mean roughness (Ra ) and mean roughness profile depth (Rz ) were reported. Twenty untreated surfaces were used as controls. RESULTS: The implant collars treated with RCZ (Ra = 0.33 μm, Rz = 2.43 μm) or BZ (Ra = 0.30 μm, Rz = 3.70 μm) yielded the highest roughness values, followed by the surfaces treated with RCP (Ra = 0.28 μm, Rz = 2.02 μm), with BP (Ra = 0.25 μm, Rz = 2.16 μm) and by the use of F1 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.22 μm) and F2 (Ra = 0.27 μm, Rz = 2.04 μm). The lowest roughness values were observed in the AP1 (Ra = 0.23 μm, Rz = 1.60 μm) and AP2 (Ra = 0.16 μm, Rz = 1.06 μm) group, respectively. Implant collars treated with AP2 yielded statistically significantly lower (P = 0.01) Rz values compared with untreated surfaces. CONCLUSION: All tested procedures did not increase implant surface roughness significantly. Treatment with an air-powder abrasive system at high-pressure setting resulted in a smoothening of the implant collar surface.
Authors: João Paulo Mendes Tribst; Amanda Maria de Oliveira Dal Piva; Dimas Renno de Lima; Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges; Marco Antonio Bottino Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol Date: 2018 Jul-Aug