File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070108.x
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-0030090270
- PMID: 9002824
- WOS: WOS:A1996UD10400008
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Maintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures
Title | Maintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Cleaning devices Dental implants In vitro study Laser profilometry Prophylaxis Surface roughness |
Issue Date | 1996 |
Publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR |
Citation | Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1996, v. 7 n. 1, p. 64-72 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The aim of the present study was to evaluate surface alterations on titanium implant necks subsequent to different prophylaxis procedures. Fifty ITI implants were utilized. Forty implants were treated with 10 different prophylaxis procedures (ultrasonic sealer, plastic tip ultrasonic sealer, stainless steel curette, titanium curette, teflon curette, air powered system, abrasive rubber cups, polishing rubber cup and brush), and 10 implants were left as untreated controls. Surface alterations were studied on an area of 1mm×0.9mm and quantified using optical microscopic, SEM and laser prophylometer analysis. The use of the laser prophylometer provided an objective criterion for evaluation, expressing implant neck surface alterations in numeric values in terms of two roughness indexes, Ra and Rz. The results showed that, in comparison with the controls (Ra=0.50; Rz= 3.98) the procedures investigated could be divided into 3 main groups: 1) Methods which altered the implant neck surface producing increased roughness (Ra=0.68-2.08 ; Rz=4.68-11.92); 2) Methods which left the implant neck surface unaltered (Ra=0.44-0.57: Rz=0.42-3.46); 3) Methods resulting in a smoothening of the implant neck surface (Ra=0.36; Rz=2.15). Group 1 included procedures that should be avoided. However, it appeared safe to apply the procedures of groups 2 and 3. To confirm these results, it will be necessary to evaluate the plaque- and calculus-removing efficacy from titanium neck implant surfaces in vivo. Copyright © Munksgaard 1996. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/153964 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.865 |
ISI Accession Number ID | |
References |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Matarasso, S | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Quaremba, G | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Coraggio, F | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Vaia, E | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Cafiero, C | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Lang, NP | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2012-08-08T08:22:32Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2012-08-08T08:22:32Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 1996 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Clinical Oral Implants Research, 1996, v. 7 n. 1, p. 64-72 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0905-7161 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/153964 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The aim of the present study was to evaluate surface alterations on titanium implant necks subsequent to different prophylaxis procedures. Fifty ITI implants were utilized. Forty implants were treated with 10 different prophylaxis procedures (ultrasonic sealer, plastic tip ultrasonic sealer, stainless steel curette, titanium curette, teflon curette, air powered system, abrasive rubber cups, polishing rubber cup and brush), and 10 implants were left as untreated controls. Surface alterations were studied on an area of 1mm×0.9mm and quantified using optical microscopic, SEM and laser prophylometer analysis. The use of the laser prophylometer provided an objective criterion for evaluation, expressing implant neck surface alterations in numeric values in terms of two roughness indexes, Ra and Rz. The results showed that, in comparison with the controls (Ra=0.50; Rz= 3.98) the procedures investigated could be divided into 3 main groups: 1) Methods which altered the implant neck surface producing increased roughness (Ra=0.68-2.08 ; Rz=4.68-11.92); 2) Methods which left the implant neck surface unaltered (Ra=0.44-0.57: Rz=0.42-3.46); 3) Methods resulting in a smoothening of the implant neck surface (Ra=0.36; Rz=2.15). Group 1 included procedures that should be avoided. However, it appeared safe to apply the procedures of groups 2 and 3. To confirm these results, it will be necessary to evaluate the plaque- and calculus-removing efficacy from titanium neck implant surfaces in vivo. Copyright © Munksgaard 1996. | en_US |
dc.language | eng | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | Clinical Oral Implants Research | en_US |
dc.subject | Cleaning devices | - |
dc.subject | Dental implants | - |
dc.subject | In vitro study | - |
dc.subject | Laser profilometry | - |
dc.subject | Prophylaxis | - |
dc.subject | Surface roughness | - |
dc.subject.mesh | Air | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Implants | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Polishing - Instrumentation | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Dental Prophylaxis - Instrumentation - Methods | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Microscopy, Electron, Scanning | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Plastics | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Polytetrafluoroethylene | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Rubber | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Stainless Steel | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Subgingival Curettage - Instrumentation | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Surface Properties | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Titanium - Chemistry | en_US |
dc.subject.mesh | Ultrasonic Therapy - Instrumentation | en_US |
dc.title | Maintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.email | Lang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hk | en_US |
dc.identifier.authority | Lang, NP=rp00031 | en_US |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070108.x | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 9002824 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-0030090270 | en_US |
dc.relation.references | http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030090270&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpage | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 7 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | en_US |
dc.identifier.spage | 64 | en_US |
dc.identifier.epage | 72 | en_US |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:A1996UD10400008 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Matarasso, S=7007013441 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Quaremba, G=8530583400 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Coraggio, F=7003924601 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Vaia, E=6603772738 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Cafiero, C=6602956284 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusauthorid | Lang, NP=7201577367 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0905-7161 | - |