File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Maintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures

TitleMaintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures
Authors
Issue Date1996
PublisherWiley-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?
AbstractThe 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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/153964
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMatarasso, Sen_US
dc.contributor.authorQuaremba, Gen_US
dc.contributor.authorCoraggio, Fen_US
dc.contributor.authorVaia, Een_US
dc.contributor.authorCafiero, Cen_US
dc.contributor.authorLang, NPen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-08T08:22:32Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-08T08:22:32Z-
dc.date.issued1996en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 1996, v. 7 n. 1, p. 64-72en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/153964-
dc.description.abstractThe 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.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subject.meshAiren_US
dc.subject.meshDental Implantsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Polishing - Instrumentationen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prophylaxis - Instrumentation - Methodsen_US
dc.subject.meshMicroscopy, Electron, Scanningen_US
dc.subject.meshPlasticsen_US
dc.subject.meshPolytetrafluoroethyleneen_US
dc.subject.meshRubberen_US
dc.subject.meshStainless Steelen_US
dc.subject.meshSubgingival Curettage - Instrumentationen_US
dc.subject.meshSurface Propertiesen_US
dc.subject.meshTitanium - Chemistryen_US
dc.subject.meshUltrasonic Therapy - Instrumentationen_US
dc.titleMaintenance of implants: An in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis proceduresen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailLang, NP:nplang@hkucc.hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityLang, NP=rp00031en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.pmid9002824-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-0030090270en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-0030090270&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume7en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.spage64en_US
dc.identifier.epage72en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:A1996UD10400008-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMatarasso, S=7007013441en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridQuaremba, G=8530583400en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCoraggio, F=7003924601en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridVaia, E=6603772738en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridCafiero, C=6602956284en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridLang, NP=7201577367en_US

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats