• Submission Form (PDF)
• Author Guidelines (PDF)
• Submit

• Accepted Manuscripts

Back

Volume 27 , Issue 2
March/April 2012
Pages 308-317

Effects of 10 Cleaning Instruments on Four Different Implant Surfaces

Petra Schmage, Prof Dr Med Dent/Julia Thielemann, DDS/Ibrahim Nergiz, Prof Dr Med Dent/Thomas M. Scorziello, MS, DMD, MS/Peter Pfeiffer, Prof Dr Med Dent

PMID: 22442769

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a variety of implant cleaning instruments on different implant surfaces, specifically surface roughness and cleaning efficacy. Materials and Methods: Biofilm layers of Streptococcus mutans were cultivated on titanium disks with four different surface structures (polished, grit-blasted, acid-etched, and acid-etched/grit-blasted). Five disks each were cleaned using nine mechanical implant cleaning instruments or an erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser. Surface roughness (average, Ra; maximum, Rz) and waviness (Lr) were evaluated by two-dimensional laser profilometry. Surface structure damage and cleaning scores were assessed by scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analyses of the results were performed with one- and two-way analyses of variance and Bonferroni-Dunn multiple-comparison post hoc analysis (α = .05). Results: Ra and Rz values for the acid-etched surfaces and Ra, Rz, and Lr values for the polished and the grit-blasted surfaces showed no significant differences between the different cleaning methods or cleaning instruments compared to the control (not cultured, not cleaned) groups. Significantly lower Ra and Rz values on grit-blasted/acid-etched implant surfaces were found following use of the Sonic-Flex clean with prophylaxis brush and the plastic curette compared to Satelec ProphyMax with Periosoft curette. Ra and Rz values of the different implant structure surfaces before cleaning were significantly different between all implant surfaces except for the polished compared to the acid-etched surfaces. Conclusions: Cleaning effect and alterations of the implant surfaces were strongly dependent on the implant cleaning method used. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:308–317

Key words: cleaning instruments, implant surfaces, laser profilometry, scanning electron microscopy, surface roughness

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 

Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.