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

Altmetrics

Downloads

18 downloads since deposited on 30 Oct 2015
16 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:10 Sep 2016 00:00
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

Preview Icon on Download
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF - Registered users only
Size: 323kB
View at publisher
Preview Icon on Download
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 2MB

Article Networks

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations