| Literature DB >> 32290450 |
Marco Lollobrigida1, Lorenzo Fortunato1, Giorgio Serafini1, Giulia Mazzucchi1, Giuseppina Bozzuto2, Agnese Molinari2, Emanuele Serra3, Francesca Menchini4, Iole Vozza1, Alberto De Biase1.
Abstract
The surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is currently based on the removal of biofilms from the implant surface by primary means of mechanical and physical treatments. However, such approaches often determine some alterations of the implant surface with detrimental effects on re-osseointegration. This study aims to evaluate the effects of four different mechanical and physical treatments on titanium samples with moderately rough surface. Air powder abrasion (AP) with glycine powder, a titanium brush (TB) and a diode laser at 3 W (L3) and 4 W (L4) were tested. Surface morphology, roughness and chemical composition were then assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), white light interferometer and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), respectively. The microscopic analysis revealed significant alterations in surface morphology on TB samples, while AP and L3 had only a minor or null impact. L4 samples revealed signs of overheating due to the excessive power. Nevertheless, the overall roughness of the samples was not significantly altered in terms of roughness parameters. Similarly, surface chemical composition was not significantly affected by the treatments. Among the treatments tested in this study, air powder abrasion with glycine powder and 3 W diode laser had the lowest impact on surface physicochemical properties.Entities:
Keywords: dental implants; implant decontamination; mechanical treatments; peri-implantitis; peri-implantitis therapy; peri-implantitis treatment
Year: 2020 PMID: 32290450 PMCID: PMC7215863 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17082624
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1(a) Air powder abrasion with glycine powder; (b) titanium brush; (c) diode laser.
Figure 2SEM images of control disk (CTR) samples. Magnifications from 500× to 20,000×.
Figure 3SEM images of air powder abrasion (AP) samples. Glycine particle residues (white arrows) and rounded edges can be observed. Magnifications from 500× to 20,000×.
Figure 4SEM images of titanium brush (TB) samples. Smoothed portions and titanium particles (white arrows) are clearly visible at high magnifications. Magnifications from 500× to 20,000×.
Figure 5SEM images of diode laser at 3 W (L3) samples. No signs of alteration are visible. Magnifications from 500× to 20,000×.
Figure 6SEM images of diode laser at 4 W (L4) samples. Laser spot melting (white arrows) could be visible at 5000×. Magnifications from 500× to 20,000×.
Surface roughness analysis.
| CTR | AP | TB | L3 | L4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sa (µm) | 2.938 ± 0.05 | 2.584 ± 0.21 | 3.197 ± 0.32 | 2.894 ± 0.07 | 2.434 ± 0.10 |
| Sq (µm) | 4.353 ± 0.53 | 3.579 ± 0.33 | 4.303 ± 0.45 | 4.235 ± 0.23 | 3.727 ± 0.41 |
| Scx (µm) | 21.661 ± 1.89 | 20.760 ± 0.56 | 20.615 ± 0.60 | 21.944 ± 0.92 | 20.615 ± 0.44 |
Sa and Sq = average surface height deviation amplitude and root-mean-square roughness; Scx = average spacing between the peaks. CTR, control. AP, air powder abrasion. TB, titanium brush. L3, diode laser at 3 W. L4, diode laser at 4 W.
Figure 7XPS (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy) analysis of samples showing the spectra of Ti2p, O1s and C1s.
Atomic percentage composition of samples.
| Titanium (%) | Oxygen (%) | Carbon (%) | Sodium (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTR | 9 | 43 | 45 | 3 |
| AP | 4 | 43 | 50 | 3 |
| TB | 8 | 48 | 42 | 2 |
| L3 | 11 | 50 | 36 | 3 |