STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant survival depends on proper and timely oral hygiene maintenance, and a wide variety of oral prophylaxis procedures have been recommended and used on implant abutments. PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the surface quality of both commercially pure titanium and titanium-alloy implant abutments, subjected to various hygiene methods and instruments with a standardized, clinically applicable scaling force. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Commercially pure titanium and titanium-alloy abutments were exposed to five oral hygiene methods; a gold-alloy-tipped scaler, a high-grade resin scaler, a graphite-reinforced scaler, an air-powder abrasive system, and a rubber cup with tin oxide slurry. A customized test device that simulated the scaling motion and allowed the application of a standard load at the tip of the scaler was used. Scanning electron photomicrographs (x200) of the pretreatment and treated surfaces were obtained and compared qualitatively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: No significant surface alteration was produced by the air abrasive system. All other hygiene methods either created significant surface alterations, left residual particles on the abutment surfaces, or both.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant survival depends on proper and timely oral hygiene maintenance, and a wide variety of oral prophylaxis procedures have been recommended and used on implant abutments. PURPOSE: This in vitro study compared the surface quality of both commercially pure titanium and titanium-alloy implant abutments, subjected to various hygiene methods and instruments with a standardized, clinically applicable scaling force. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Commercially pure titanium and titanium-alloy abutments were exposed to five oral hygiene methods; a gold-alloy-tipped scaler, a high-grade resin scaler, a graphite-reinforced scaler, an air-powder abrasive system, and a rubber cup with tin oxide slurry. A customized test device that simulated the scaling motion and allowed the application of a standard load at the tip of the scaler was used. Scanning electron photomicrographs (x200) of the pretreatment and treated surfaces were obtained and compared qualitatively. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: No significant surface alteration was produced by the air abrasive system. All other hygiene methods either created significant surface alterations, left residual particles on the abutment surfaces, or both.