Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

Korean Academy of Periodontology (대한치주과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Surface alterations following instrumentation with a nylon or metal brush evaluated with confocal microscopy

  • Kim, Young-Sung (Department of Dentistry, University of Ulsan College of Medicine) ;
  • Park, Jun-Beom (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine) ;
  • Ko, Youngkyung (Department of Periodontics, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2019.04.26
  • Accepted : 2019.09.15
  • Published : 2019.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: Surface alterations of titanium discs following instrumentation with either a nylon brush or a metal brush were evaluated. Methods: A total of 27 titanium discs with 3 surface types (9 discs for each type), including machined (M) surfaces, sandblasted and acid-etched (SA) surfaces, and surfaces treated by resorbable blast media (RBM), were used. Three discs were instrumented with a nylon brush, another 3 discs were instrumented with a metal brush, and the remaining 3 discs were used as controls for each surface type. Surface properties including the arithmetic mean value of a linear profile (Ra), maximum height of a linear profile (Rz), skewness of the assessed linear profile (Rsk), arithmetic mean height of a surface (Sa), maximum height of a surface (Sz), developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr), skewness of a surface profile (Ssk), and kurtosis of a surface profile (Sku) were measured using confocal microscopy. Results: Instrumentation with the nylon brush increased the Ra, Sa, and Sdr of the M surfaces. On the SA surfaces, Ra, Sa and Sdr decreased after nylon brush use. Meanwhile, the roughness of the RBM surface was not affected by the nylon brush. The use of the metal brush also increased the Ra, Sa, and Sdr of the M surface; however, the increase in Sdr was not statistically significant (P=0.119). The decreases in the Rz, Sz, Ra, Sa, and Sdr of the SA surfaces were remarkable. On the RBM surfaces, the use of the metal brush did not cause changes in Ra and Sa, whereas Rz, Sz, and Sdr were reduced. Conclusions: Titanium surfaces were altered when instrumented either with a nylon brush or a metal brush. Hence, it is recommended that nylon or metal brushes be used with caution in order to avoid damaging the implant fixture/abutment surface.

Keywords

References

  1. Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T. Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:286-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01274.x
  2. Mombelli A, Lang NP. The diagnosis and treatment of peri-implantitis. Periodontol 2000 1998;17:63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00124.x
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345930720090801
  4. Rimondini L, Fare S, Brambilla E, Felloni A, Consonni C, Brossa F, et al. The effect of surface roughness on early in vivo plaque colonization on titanium. J Periodontol 1997;68:556-62. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1997.68.6.556
  5. Bollen CM, Lambrechts P, Quirynen M. Comparison of surface roughness of oral hard materials to the threshold surface roughness for bacterial plaque retention: a review of the literature. Dent Mater 1997;13:258-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(97)80038-3
  6. Bollen CM, Papaioanno W, Van Eldere J, Schepers E, Quirynen M, van Steenberghe D. The influence of abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:201-11. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070302.x
  7. Quirynen M, Bollen CM, Papaioannou W, Van Eldere J, van Steenberghe D. The influence of titanium abutment surface roughness on plaque accumulation and gingivitis: short-term observations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:169-78.
  8. Alhag M, Renvert S, Polyzois I, Claffey N. Re-osseointegration on rough implant surfaces previously coated with bacterial biofilm: an experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:182-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01429.x
  9. Park JB, Jang YJ, Choi BK, Kim KK, Ko Y. Treatment with various ultrasonic scaler tips affects efficiency of brushing of SLA titanium discs. J Craniofac Surg 2013;24:e119-23. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e3182668a1a
  10. Park JB, Jang YJ, Koh M, Choi BK, Kim KK, Ko Y. In vitro analysis of the efficacy of ultrasonic scalers and a toothbrush for removing bacteria from resorbable blast material titanium disks. J Periodontol 2013;84:1191-8. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2012.120369
  11. Park JB, Kim N, Ko Y. Effects of ultrasonic scaler tips and toothbrush on titanium disc surfaces evaluated with confocal microscopy. J Craniofac Surg 2012;23:1552-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31825e3ba6
  12. Wohlfahrt JC, Lyngstadaas SP. Mechanical debridement of a peri-implant osseous defect with a novel titanium brush and reconstruction with porous titanium granules: a case report with reentry surgery. Clin Adv Periodontics 2012;2:136-40. https://doi.org/10.1902/cap.2012.110062
  13. Schmidt KE, Auschill TM, Heumann C, Frankenberger R, Eick S, Sculean A, et al. Clinical and laboratory evaluation of the effects of different treatment modalities on titanium healing caps: a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22:2149-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2287-8
  14. Bertoldi C, Lusuardi D, Battarra F, Sassatelli P, Spinato S, Zaffe D. The maintenance of inserted titanium implants: in-vitro evaluation of exposed surfaces cleaned with three different instruments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:57-63.
  15. Chen CJ, Ding SJ, Chen CC. Effects of surface conditions of titanium dental implants on bacterial adhesion. Photomed Laser Surg 2016;34:379-88. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2016.4103
  16. Sahrmann P, Ronay V, Hofer D, Attin T, Jung RE, Schmidlin PR. In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:314-9.
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1990.61.8.485
  18. Homiak AW, Cook PA, DeBoer J. Effect of hygiene instrumentation on titanium abutments: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:364-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90248-9
  19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050103.x
  20. Meschenmoser A, d'Hoedt B, Meyle J, Elssner G, Korn D, Hammerle H, et al. Effects of various hygiene procedures on the surface characteristics of titanium abutments. J Periodontol 1996;67:229-35. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1996.67.3.229
  21. Schmage P, Thielemann J, Nergiz I, Scorziello TM, Pfeiffer P. Effects of 10 cleaning instruments on four different implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:308-17.
  22. 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.
  23. Louropoulou A, Slot DE, Van der Weijden FA. Titanium surface alterations following the use of different mechanical instruments: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:643-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02208.x
  24. Evans AR, Harper IS, Sanson GD. Confocal imaging, visualization and 3-D surface measurement of small mammalian teeth. J Microsc 2001;204:108-18. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2818.2001.00939.x
  25. Howell K, Hopkins N, Mcloughlin P. Combined confocal microscopy and stereology: a highly efficient and unbiased approach to quantitative structural measurement in tissues. Exp Physiol 2002;87:747-56. https://doi.org/10.1113/eph8702477
  26. Kwan JY, Zablotsky MH, Meffert RM. Implant maintenance using a modified ultrasonic instrument. J Dent Hyg 1990;64:422.
  27. 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.
  28. Rimondini L, Cicognani Simoncini F, Carrassi A. Micro-morphometric assessment of titanium plasma-sprayed coating removal using burs for the treatment of peri-implant disease. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:129-38. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.110205.x
  29. Ruhling A, Hellweg A, Plagmann HC, Kocher T. Removal of HA and TPS implant coatings and fibroblast attachment on exposed surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12:301-8. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012004301.x
  30. Barbour ME, O'Sullivan DJ, Jenkinson HF, Jagger DC. The effects of polishing methods on surface morphology, roughness and bacterial colonisation of titanium abutments. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007;18:1439-47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-007-0141-2
  31. Duarte PM, Reis AF, de Freitas PM, Ota-Tsuzuki C. Bacterial adhesion on smooth and rough titanium surfaces after treatment with different instruments. J Periodontol 2009;80:1824-32. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090273
  32. 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;77A:437-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30628
  33. 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.