The effect of standardised implantoplasty protocol on titanium surface roughness: an in-vitro study

Abstract

The effect of standardised implantoplasty protocol on titanium surface roughness: an in-vitro study Abstract: To analyse the changes of surface characteristics of machined and moderately roughened titanium disks following a standardised implantoplasty protocol. Forty titanium discs (machined: n = 20; moderately roughened: n = 20) were instrumented with one half of each disc maintained as the control (non-instrumented). The standardised implantoplasty protocol was carried out using a custom jig with the sequential change of burs: 1) Regular grit diamond [10s], 2) Super-fine grit diamond [10s], 3) Brownie™ silicone polisher [15s], 4) Greenie™ silicone polisher [15s]. Surface topography was analysed using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was used to measure the elemental profiles of each disc. Quantitative analysis showed similar changes in level of roughness between the machined and moderately roughened titanium discs. CLSM demonstrated an increased roughness (Ra and Sa values) after polishing with a regular grit diamond bur when compared to the uninstrumented surfaces. Although the roughness decreased after the further polishing with the super-fine grit diamond bur, subsequent instrumentation using silicon burs tended to increase the roughness, albeit being statistically insignificant. There was a residue of silicon particles despite the irrigation after each polishing stage. The proposed implantoplasty protocol did not achieve a sufficient level of smoothness on the machined or moderately roughened titanium surfaces when compared to the Ra threshold. Further research is recommended to test the efficacy of each bur on titanium surfaces with longer duration using actual oral implants to allow better comparison.

Experimental implantoplasty outcomes correlate with fibroblast growth in vitro

“…Bollen et al suggested that bacterial colonization is not affected as long as the substrate roughness is below Ra 0.2 μm [28]. In the present study only the POL control group had a S a value below this threshold, which is in agreement with previous studies [9,10,13]. To the best of the authors' knowledge, only Costa-Berengeuer and co-workers have reported S a values of less than 0.2 μm by the use of mere chairside bur-sequences [16].…”

“…Implantoplasty is above all performed to counter microbial challenges, and its impact on preventing bacterial recolonization and facilitating removal of bacterial colonization is considered pivotal to healing and homeostasis of peri-implant health following implantoplasty treatment in response to peri-implantitis challenges. So far in vitro studies on implantoplasty have focused on surface roughness [8][9][10], heat generation [11][12][13], and fracture resistance [14,16,17]. This study provides some new insights on the soft tissue component following experimental implantoplasty.…”

“…All bur sequences tested rendered surfaces that were smoother than the plasma-spray-coated control implant, whereas no significant differences were found between the different bur sequences and the machined control [7]. More recent in vitro studies have focused on the optimum bur sequence [8][9][10][11], the heat generation following titanium polishing [11][12][13], and biocompatibility [14,15]. Fracture resistance has also been the focus of in vitro studies [16], but according to a recent systematic review no fractures following implantoplasty have been reported in the literature [17].…”

Effect of implantoplasty on fracture resistance and surface roughness of standard diameter dental implants

“…() obtained a mean R a value of 0.32 ± 0.14 μm after conducting a five bur implantoplasty procedure (diamond burs 106‐, 40‐, 15‐μm grit, plus Brownie ® and Greenie ® silicone‐impregnated polishers), which took a mean time of 21 ± 4 min per implant. Furthermore, three studies have reported R a values of > 4.0 μm after standardized implantoplasty on titanium disks (Tawse‐Smith, Kota, Jayaweera, Vuuren & Ma, ; Tawse‐Smith et al., ) and titanium dental implants (de Souza Junior et al., ). In the three latter studies, the final surface was significantly rougher than the original one.…”

“…However, the reported working time with each bur (less than 1 min), the type and shape of the burs, bur angulation, and area and shape of the treated surfaces are factors that might explain the disparity in their results. Indeed, the outcomes of studies that use titanium disks (Tawse‐Smith et al., , ) are difficult to generalize to a clinical situation because of the absence of threads.…”