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

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 scaler, plastic tip ultrasonic scaler, 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 1 mm x 0.9 mm and quantified using optical microscopic, SEM and laser prophylometer analysis. The use of 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.

Novel Models to Manage Biofilms on Microtextured Dental Implant Surfaces

“…The various conventional methods that have been examined for biofilm removal from implant surfaces include ultrasonic scalers fitted with various types of tips, hand periodontal curettes with steel, titanium, plastic or Teflon® tips, abrasive and polishing rubber cups and brushes, and particle beam (air powder abrasion) devices [40]. Most or all of these are found in a modern dental office.…”

Dental-Implant Maintenance: A Critical Factor in Long-Term Treatment Success

“…[7] The most important consideration is selecting safe and efficient instruments for removing calculus and plaque. [8] Standard metal scalers and curettes are not recommended for implant debridement due to the possibility of scratching the titanium surface. While plastic scalers are available, their effectiveness in removing hard deposits is limited; gold, titanium or vitreous carbon tipped instruments are generally more effective [8] .…”

“…[8] Standard metal scalers and curettes are not recommended for implant debridement due to the possibility of scratching the titanium surface. While plastic scalers are available, their effectiveness in removing hard deposits is limited; gold, titanium or vitreous carbon tipped instruments are generally more effective [8] . Ultrasonic or piezoelectric scalers with plastic or carbon tips have also been shown to be effective without damaging implant surfaces.…”

“…[12] Rubber cup polishing with toothpaste, fine prophy paste, commercial implant polishing pastes, and tin oxide have been shown not to alter titanium surfaces. [8] Before polishing, calcified deposits should be removed. An antibacterial solution such as chlorhexidine may be used, when no polishing agent is desired.…”

Antimicrobial effect of photodynamic therapy using methylene blue and red color diode laser on biofilm attached to sandblasted and acid-etched surface of titanium

“…The proposed treatments include access flap procedures, antimicrobial therapy, decontamination of the exposed implant surface, and regenerative procedures with the use of a barrier membrane and/or bone substitutes [13]. However, severe damage on the implant surface during mechanical debridement could render it conducive to future plaque accumulation [14]. Furthermore, conventional mechanical debridement cannot completely remove all pathogenic microbes.…”