Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures


Ramel, Christian F; Lüssi, Anja; Özcan, Mutlu; Jung, Ronald E; Hämmerle, Christoph H F; Thoma, Daniel S (2016). Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 27(7):776-781.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not one of six implantoplasty procedures is superior to the others rendering a minimal final implant surface roughness and a short treatment time.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two one-piece implants were embedded in epoxy resin blocks with 6-mm rough implant surface exposed. The following implantoplasty polishing sequences were applied: Brownie(®) , Greenie(®) sequence (BG) (diamond rotary instruments 106-, 40-, 15-μm grit, Brownie(®) , Greenie(®) silicone polishers); Arkansas stone sequence (AS) (diamond 106-, 40-, 15-μm grit, Arkansas stone torpedo-shaped bur); Short diamond sequence (SD) (diamond 106-, 40-, 4-μm grit); Short diamond sequence with Greenie(®) (SDG) (diamond 106-, 40-, 4-μm grit, Greenie(®) ); Complete diamond sequence (CD) (diamond 106-, 40-, 15-, 8-, 4-μm grit); Complete diamond sequence with Greenie(®) (CDG) (106-, 40-, 15-, 8-, 4-μm grit, Greenie(®) ). The polished neck portion served as a positive control, the untreated sandblasted and acid-etched surface as negative control. Each implant was scanned with a contact profilometer rendering Ra values and Rz values as a measure of surface roughness. The time needed to polish the implant surface for each group was recorded. Simultaneous comparisons between more than two groups were done performing Kruskal-Wallis tests. Comparisons between two groups were analysed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
RESULTS: Mean Ra values amounted to 0.32 ± 0.14 μm (BG), 0.39 ± 0.13 μm (AS), 0.59 ± 0.19 μm (SDG), 0.71 ± 0.22 μm (SD), 0.75 ± 0.26 μm (CDG), 0.98 ± 0.30 μm (CD), 0.10 ± 0.01 μm (PC) and 1.94 ± 0.47 μm (NC). Pairwise one-sided comparisons between the test group revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The shortest treatment time was recorded for group AS (13 ± 2 min) and the longest for CDG (21 ± 2 min) and BG (21 ± 4 min).
CONCLUSIONS: Considering final surface roughness and treatment duration, the use of rotary diamond burs in decreasing roughness, followed by an arkansas stone (group AS), appears to be an optimal treatment option.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not one of six implantoplasty procedures is superior to the others rendering a minimal final implant surface roughness and a short treatment time.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-two one-piece implants were embedded in epoxy resin blocks with 6-mm rough implant surface exposed. The following implantoplasty polishing sequences were applied: Brownie(®) , Greenie(®) sequence (BG) (diamond rotary instruments 106-, 40-, 15-μm grit, Brownie(®) , Greenie(®) silicone polishers); Arkansas stone sequence (AS) (diamond 106-, 40-, 15-μm grit, Arkansas stone torpedo-shaped bur); Short diamond sequence (SD) (diamond 106-, 40-, 4-μm grit); Short diamond sequence with Greenie(®) (SDG) (diamond 106-, 40-, 4-μm grit, Greenie(®) ); Complete diamond sequence (CD) (diamond 106-, 40-, 15-, 8-, 4-μm grit); Complete diamond sequence with Greenie(®) (CDG) (106-, 40-, 15-, 8-, 4-μm grit, Greenie(®) ). The polished neck portion served as a positive control, the untreated sandblasted and acid-etched surface as negative control. Each implant was scanned with a contact profilometer rendering Ra values and Rz values as a measure of surface roughness. The time needed to polish the implant surface for each group was recorded. Simultaneous comparisons between more than two groups were done performing Kruskal-Wallis tests. Comparisons between two groups were analysed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
RESULTS: Mean Ra values amounted to 0.32 ± 0.14 μm (BG), 0.39 ± 0.13 μm (AS), 0.59 ± 0.19 μm (SDG), 0.71 ± 0.22 μm (SD), 0.75 ± 0.26 μm (CDG), 0.98 ± 0.30 μm (CD), 0.10 ± 0.01 μm (PC) and 1.94 ± 0.47 μm (NC). Pairwise one-sided comparisons between the test group revealed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The shortest treatment time was recorded for group AS (13 ± 2 min) and the longest for CDG (21 ± 2 min) and BG (21 ± 4 min).
CONCLUSIONS: Considering final surface roughness and treatment duration, the use of rotary diamond burs in decreasing roughness, followed by an arkansas stone (group AS), appears to be an optimal treatment option.

Statistics

Citations

3 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

39 downloads since deposited on 30 Oct 2015
35 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:dental implants; implant surface modification; implantoplasty;peri-implantitis; profilometry; resective peri-implantitis therapy; rotary instruments
Language:English
Date:2016
Deposited On:30 Oct 2015 07:46
Last Modified:08 Dec 2017 14:35
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:0905-7161
Additional Information:This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [Ramel CF, Lüssi A, Özcan M, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2015, 1–6], which has been published in final form at [http://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12682]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12682
PubMed ID:26355907

Download

Download PDF  'Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures'.
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 2MB