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

[img] 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) | Request a copy

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.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)


04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry

UniBE Contributor:

Lüssi, Anja Florence


600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health








Eveline Carmen Schuler

Date Deposited:

08 Mar 2017 10:28

Last Modified:

09 Sep 2017 18:35

Publisher DOI:


PubMed ID:


Uncontrolled Keywords:

dental implants; implant surface modification; implantoplasty; peri-implantitis; profilometry; resective peri-implantitis therapy; rotary instruments




Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback