2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102105
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of implant surface roughness on decontamination by antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and chemical agents: A preliminary study in vitro

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Metal instruments and ultrasonic scalers with or without local antiseptic therapy can increase the surface roughness of implants, and non-metallic curettes do not provide effective removal of the microbial plaque. Chemical agents do not allow complete removal of bacterial contamination and may contaminate the implant surface with different chemical agents [9]. Diode lasers with different wavelengths have been effective in decontaminating implants and inhibiting lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced macrophage activation and consequent attenuation of the inflammatory response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Metal instruments and ultrasonic scalers with or without local antiseptic therapy can increase the surface roughness of implants, and non-metallic curettes do not provide effective removal of the microbial plaque. Chemical agents do not allow complete removal of bacterial contamination and may contaminate the implant surface with different chemical agents [9]. Diode lasers with different wavelengths have been effective in decontaminating implants and inhibiting lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced macrophage activation and consequent attenuation of the inflammatory response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 35 Surface parameters obtained were R q (root mean square deviation), R a (arithmetic mean deviation), R sk (skewness), and R ku (kurtosis). 36 Data was obtained by analyzing a 5 μm × 5 μm area from the surface of each gel type. Both the rms surface roughness, R q , and arithmetic surface roughness, R a, values of the gels were quite similar, within the range of ∼ 20–25 nm ( Figure 5 ; Table 2 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Surface roughness was analyzed in NanoScope Analysis which measured the roughness parameters . Surface parameters obtained were R q (root mean square deviation), R a (arithmetic mean deviation), R sk (skewness), and R ku (kurtosis) . Data was obtained by analyzing a 5 μm × 5 μm area from the surface of each gel type.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The coatings used on the Ni-Cr metal surface are characterized by a smoother surface compared to surfaces without silicon carbonitride layers. The observed differences may be important in medical and dental applications [46][47][48][49][50].…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To achieve implant success, the following factors must be taken into account: implant design, implant material, implant surface, and bone quality. In assessing the osseointegration properties of surfaces, topography, chemistry, charge, and wettability are important [50,51]. Bacterial adhesion is influenced by the roughness of the implant surface and its chemical and physical properties, which is why it is so important to maintain this parameter in the context of dental and medical implants [51][52][53].…”
Section: Surface Roughnessmentioning
confidence: 99%