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

Ramel, Christian F; Lüssi, Anja Florence; 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), pp. 776-781. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.12682

Text Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (316kB)

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.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

1 since deposited on 08 Mar 2017
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item