Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study
Abstract Objective To compare the surface roughness of sandblasted, large grit, acid‐etched (SLA) surfaced titanium discs, after implantoplasty (IP) with different combinations of rotating instruments without or with the subsequent use of a silicone polisher. Methods Titanium discs (n = 12 per group...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-12-01
|
| Series: | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.659 |
| _version_ | 1811198435145023488 |
|---|---|
| author | Hulya Yildiz Kristina Bertl Andreas Stavropoulos |
| author_facet | Hulya Yildiz Kristina Bertl Andreas Stavropoulos |
| author_sort | Hulya Yildiz |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objective To compare the surface roughness of sandblasted, large grit, acid‐etched (SLA) surfaced titanium discs, after implantoplasty (IP) with different combinations of rotating instruments without or with the subsequent use of a silicone polisher. Methods Titanium discs (n = 12 per group) with an SLA surface were treated with the following IP protocols: (1) Tungsten carbide bur sequence from company 1 (Komet Dental) without or with polishing (P) with a silicone polisher (Brownie®), (2) tungsten carbide bur sequence from company 2 (Hager & Meisinger GmbH) without or with P, and (3) diamond bur sequence (125, 40, 15‐μm grit) without or with P. Pristine turned (T) and SLA titanium discs were used as negative and positive controls, respectively. Surface roughness measurements were taken with a contact profilometer rendering Ra and Rz values. Results All IP protocols, even without P, resulted in significantly reduced surface roughness compared to the SLA group. The tungsten carbide bur protocols, even without P, resulted in a surface roughness similar to or significantly lower than that in the T group in terms of Ra and Rz, respectively. IP with the diamond bur sequence resulted in a significantly rougher surface compared to that achieved with the carbide burs. In all IP groups, P with a silicone polisher resulted in a significantly smoother surface. Conclusions IP with dedicated tungsten carbide burs without or with the subsequent use of a silicone polisher resulted in a surface roughness similar to or significantly lower than that of commercially available turned surfaces. IP with a diamond bur sequence required additional polishing to achieve a comparable surface roughness to that of commercially available turned surfaces. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:30:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4da5f66b8fb642cab3a1d3318fe43854 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2057-4347 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:30:42Z |
| publishDate | 2022-12-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Clinical and Experimental Dental Research |
| spelling | doaj.art-4da5f66b8fb642cab3a1d3318fe438542022-12-22T03:53:29ZengWileyClinical and Experimental Dental Research2057-43472022-12-01861315132110.1002/cre2.659Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory studyHulya Yildiz0Kristina Bertl1Andreas Stavropoulos2Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry Istanbul Aydın University Istanbul TurkeyDivision of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry Medical University of Vienna Vienna AustriaDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Odontology Univesity of Malmö Malmö SwedenAbstract Objective To compare the surface roughness of sandblasted, large grit, acid‐etched (SLA) surfaced titanium discs, after implantoplasty (IP) with different combinations of rotating instruments without or with the subsequent use of a silicone polisher. Methods Titanium discs (n = 12 per group) with an SLA surface were treated with the following IP protocols: (1) Tungsten carbide bur sequence from company 1 (Komet Dental) without or with polishing (P) with a silicone polisher (Brownie®), (2) tungsten carbide bur sequence from company 2 (Hager & Meisinger GmbH) without or with P, and (3) diamond bur sequence (125, 40, 15‐μm grit) without or with P. Pristine turned (T) and SLA titanium discs were used as negative and positive controls, respectively. Surface roughness measurements were taken with a contact profilometer rendering Ra and Rz values. Results All IP protocols, even without P, resulted in significantly reduced surface roughness compared to the SLA group. The tungsten carbide bur protocols, even without P, resulted in a surface roughness similar to or significantly lower than that in the T group in terms of Ra and Rz, respectively. IP with the diamond bur sequence resulted in a significantly rougher surface compared to that achieved with the carbide burs. In all IP groups, P with a silicone polisher resulted in a significantly smoother surface. Conclusions IP with dedicated tungsten carbide burs without or with the subsequent use of a silicone polisher resulted in a surface roughness similar to or significantly lower than that of commercially available turned surfaces. IP with a diamond bur sequence required additional polishing to achieve a comparable surface roughness to that of commercially available turned surfaces.https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.659diamond bursimplantoplastylaboratory studyprofilometersurface roughnesstungsten carbide burs |
| spellingShingle | Hulya Yildiz Kristina Bertl Andreas Stavropoulos Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study Clinical and Experimental Dental Research diamond burs implantoplasty laboratory study profilometer surface roughness tungsten carbide burs |
| title | Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study |
| title_full | Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study |
| title_fullStr | Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study |
| title_short | Titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols: A laboratory study |
| title_sort | titanium implant surface roughness after different implantoplasty protocols a laboratory study |
| topic | diamond burs implantoplasty laboratory study profilometer surface roughness tungsten carbide burs |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.659 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hulyayildiz titaniumimplantsurfaceroughnessafterdifferentimplantoplastyprotocolsalaboratorystudy AT kristinabertl titaniumimplantsurfaceroughnessafterdifferentimplantoplastyprotocolsalaboratorystudy AT andreasstavropoulos titaniumimplantsurfaceroughnessafterdifferentimplantoplastyprotocolsalaboratorystudy |