Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparative evaluation of roughness of titanium surfaces treated by different hygiene instruments

  • Unursaikhan, Otgonbayar (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Lee, Jung-Seok (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cha, Jae-Kook (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Park, Jung-Chul (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Jung, Ui-Won (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Kim, Chang-Sung (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cho, Kyoo-Sung (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Choi, Seong-Ho (Department of Periodontology, Research Institute for Periodontal Regeneration, Yonsei University College of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2012.01.19
  • Accepted : 2012.05.20
  • Published : 2012.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The use of appropriate instruments to clean surfaces with minimal change, is critical for the successful maintenance of a dental implant. However, there is no consensus about the type and methodology for such instruments. The aim of this study was to characterize changes in the roughness of titanium surfaces treated by various scaling instruments. Methods: Thirty-seven identical disks (5 mm in diameter) were investigated in this study. The specimens were divided into eight groups according to the types of instrumentation and the angle of application. Ultrasonic scaling systems were applied on a titanium disk to simulate standard clinical conditions. The equipment included a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler with a newly developed metallic tip (NS group), a piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler with a conventional tip (CS group), a piezoelectric root planer ultrasonic scaler with a conventional tip (PR group), and a plastic hand curette (PH group). In addition, the sites treated using piezoelectric ultrasonic scaler systems were divided two sub-groups: 15 and 45 degrees. The treated titanium surfaces were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the average surface roughness (Ra) and mean roughness profile depth (Rz) were measured with a profilometer. Results: SEM no significant changes in the titanium surfaces in the NS group, regardless of the angle of application. The PH group also showed no marked changes to the titanium surface, although some smoothening was observed. All CS and PR sites lost their original texture and showed irregular surfaces in SEM analysis. The profilometer analysis demonstrated that the roughness values (Ra and Rz) of the titanium surfaces increased in all, except the PH and NS groups, which showed roughness decreases relative to the untreated control group. The Ra value differed significantly between the NS and PR groups (P<0.05). Conclusions: The results of this study indicated that changes in or damage to titanium surfaces might be more affected by the hardness of the scaler tip than by the application method. Within the limitations of this study, the newly developed metallic scaler tip might be especially suitable for peri-implant surface decontamination, due to its limited effects on the titanium surface.

Keywords

References

  1. Lindhe J, Meyle J; Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl):282-5.
  2. Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987; 2:145-51.
  3. Leonhardt A, Renvert S, Dahlen G. Microbial findings at failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:339-45.
  4. Costerton JW, Stewart PS, Greenberg EP. Bacterial biofilms: a common cause of persistent infections. Science 1999;284:1318-22.
  5. Lamont RJ, Jenkinson HF. Subgingival colonization by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2000;15:341-9.
  6. Fransson C, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Berglundh T. Prevalence of subjects with progressive bone loss at implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:440-6.
  7. Renvert S, Persson GR. Periodontitis as a potential risk factor for peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol 2009;36 Suppl 10:9-14.
  8. Renvert S, Roos-Jansaker AM, Claffey N. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a literature review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(8 Suppl): 305-15.
  9. Lang NP, Berglundh T; Working Group 4 of Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. Periimplant diseases: where are we now? Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 Suppl 11:178-81.
  10. Leonhardt A, Dahlen G, Renvert S. Five-year clinical, microbiological, and radiological outcome following treatment of peri-implantitis in man. J Periodontol 2003;74: 1415-22.
  11. Augthun M, Tinschert J, Huber A. In vitro studies on the effect of cleaning methods on different implant surfaces. J Periodontol 1998;69:857-64.
  12. Thomson-Neal D, Evans GH, Meffert RM. Effects of various prophylactic treatments on titanium, sapphire, and hydroxyapatite-coated implants: an SEM study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1989;9:300-11.
  13. Barnes CM, Fleming LS, Mueninghoff LA. SEM evaluation of the in-vitro effects of an air-abrasive system on various implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:463-9.
  14. Cross-Poline GN, Shaklee RL, Stach DJ. Effect of implant curets on titanium implant surfaces. Am J Dent 1997;10:41-5.
  15. Hallmon WW, Waldrop TC, Meffert RM, Wade BW. A comparative study of the effects of metallic, nonmetallic, and sonic instrumentation on titanium abutment surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:96-100.
  16. Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. The comparative effect of ultrasonic scalers on titanium surfaces: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 2004;75:1269-73.
  17. Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K. A comparison of root surface instrumentation using two piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers and a hand scaler in vivo. J Periodontal Res 2007;42:90-5.
  18. Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Sculean A, Georg T, Scherbaum W, Becker J. Effects of an Er:YAG laser and the Vector ultrasonic system on the biocompatibility of titanium implants in cultures of human osteoblast-like cells. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:784-92.
  19. Schwarz F, Papanicolau P, Rothamel D, Beck B, Herten M, Becker J. Influence of plaque biofilm removal on reestablishment of the biocompatibility of contaminated titanium surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res A 2006;77:437-44.
  20. Schwarz F, Ferrari D, Popovski K, Hartig B, Becker J. Influence of different air-abrasive powders on cell viability at biologically contaminated titanium dental implants surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;88:83-91.
  21. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Marinello C, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B. Soft tissue reaction to de novo plaque formation on implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:1-8.
  22. Salonen MA, Oikarinen K, Virtanen K, Pernu H. Failures in the osseointegration of endosseous implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:92-7.
  23. Kwan JY, Zablotsky MH, Meffert RM. Implant maintenance using a modified ultrasonic instrument. J Dent Hyg 1990; 64:422, 424-5, 430.
  24. Fox SC, Moriarty JD, Kusy RP. The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 1990;61:485-90.
  25. Rapley JW, Swan RH, Hallmon WW, Mills MP. The surface characteristics produced by various oral hygiene instruments and materials on titanium implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:47-52.
  26. Gantes BG, Nilveus R. The effects of different hygiene instruments on titanium surfaces: SEM observations. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1991;11:225-39.
  27. Quirynen M, van der Mei HC, Bollen CM, Schotte A, Marechal M, Doornbusch GI, et al. An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res 1993;72:1304-9.
  28. Mengel R, Meer C, Flores-de-Jacoby L. The treatment of uncoated and titanium nitride-coated abutments with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19:232-8.
  29. Bailey GM, Gardner JS, Day MH, Kovanda BJ. Implant surface alterations from a nonmetallic ultrasonic tip. J West Soc Periodontol Periodontal Abstr 1998;46:69-73.
  30. Ruhling A, Kocher T, Kreusch J, Plagmann HC. Treatment of subgingival implant surfaces with Teflon-coated sonic and ultrasonic scaler tips and various implant curettes. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:19-29.
  31. Parham PL Jr, Cobb CM, French AA, Love JW, Drisko CL, Killoy WJ. Effects of an air-powder abrasive system on plasma-sprayed titanium implant surfaces: an in vitro evaluation. J Oral Implantol 1989;15:78-86.
  32. Van de Velde E, Thielens P, Schautteet H, Vanclooster R. Subcutaneous emphysema of the oral floor during cleaning of a bridge fixed on an IMZ implant. Case report. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984) 1991;46:64-71.
  33. Davis JR. Metals handbook: desk edition, 2nd ed. Materials Park: ASM International; 1998. p. 1510-1.

Cited by

  1. In Vitro Analysis of the Efficacy of Ultrasonic Scalers and a Toothbrush for Removing Bacteria from Resorbable Blast Material Titanium Disks vol.84, pp.8, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120369
  2. Definition, etiology, prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis – a review vol.10, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160x-10-34
  3. Instrumentation With Ultrasonic Scalers Facilitates Cleaning of the Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Titanium Implants vol.41, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-13-00078
  4. Effects of titanium brush on machined and sand‐blasted/acid‐etched titanium disc using confocal microscopy and contact profilometry vol.26, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12302
  5. In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods vol.26, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12322
  6. A Comparative Finite Element Analysis Study for Micromotion around Basally Osseointegrated and Crestal Osseointegrated Implant in Mandibular First Molar Region vol.7, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1150
  7. Análise da rugosidade de superfície e da microdureza de 6 resinas compostas vol.57, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpemd.2015.11.010
  8. Post‐treatment supportive care for the natural dentition and dental implants vol.71, pp.1, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12122
  9. Removal of Oral Biofilm on an Implant Fixture by a Cavitating Jet vol.26, pp.6, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000681
  10. Dental Hygiene and Orthodontics: Effect of Ultrasonic Instrumentation on Bonding Efficacy of Different Lingual Orthodontic Brackets vol.2017, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/3714651
  11. Evaluation of the safety and efficiency of novel metallic implant scaler tips manufactured by the powder injection molding technique vol.17, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0396-z
  12. Antimicrobial Effects of Three Different Treatment Modalities on Dental Implant Surfaces vol.43, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-16-00147
  13. Nonsurgical Treatment of Periimplantitis vol.28, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000846
  14. Decontamination methods to restore the biocompatibility of contaminated titanium surfaces vol.49, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2019.49.3.193
  15. Effects of Diode, CO2, Er : YAG, and Er and Cr : YSGG on Titanium Implant Surfaces by Scanning Electron Microscopy vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3551097
  16. Assessment of implant surface and instrument insert changes due to instrumentation with different tips for ultrasonic-driven debridement vol.21, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01384-0