Premium
Surface roughness of dental implants and treatment time using six different implantoplasty procedures
Author(s) -
Ramel Christian F.,
Lüssi Anja,
Özcan Mutlu,
Jung Ronald E.,
Hämmerle Christoph H. F.,
Thoma Daniel S.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12682
Subject(s) - diamond , polishing , materials science , surface roughness , implant , surface finish , dentistry , dental implant , composite material , medicine , surgery
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 R a values and R z 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 R a 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.