1997
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70028-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The qualitative effects of various types of hygiene instrumentation on commercially pure titanium and titanium alloy implant abutments: an in vitro and scanning electron microscope study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Tests on CP Ti with sonic apparatus produced an effect similar to those observed after tests with the Implacare scaler [35] and Cavitron [35,36]. Roughening of the surface and material loss are evident.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 57%
“…Tests on CP Ti with sonic apparatus produced an effect similar to those observed after tests with the Implacare scaler [35] and Cavitron [35,36]. Roughening of the surface and material loss are evident.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 57%
“…Non-metal instruments (plastic and Teflon tips) were found to cause minimal damage to both smooth and rough titanium surfaces. Meanwhile, hard instruments (metallic) cause major damage to smooth and rough surfaces [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 142 , 143 ]. Burs seemed to be the instruments of choice if the smoothening of a rough surface was required, but they led to increased metal particle release [ 16 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The most external areas of the implant are more exposed to damage and deformation than internal areas during mechanical instrumentation. Augthun et al [ 142 ] found roughening of the original implant surface at the implant thread edges after the use of a steel curette for 60 s. Differences can be expected given the multiple factors that influence the extent of surface damage, i.e., the number of strokes, the pressure, the number of treatments and the cleaning instrument [ 143 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Its stylus was made to run 4 mm with cut off length 0.8 mm before and after hand scaling and ultrasonic scaling in an opposite direction so that it records all the grooves produced by scaling. SEM evaluation was also considered[ 2 10 14 ] for the same. According to the mean of differences in average surface roughness values after hand scaling and ultrasonic scaling was maximum for titanium that is, Group A (H/S = 0.10050 μm and U/S = 0.11780 μm) and minimum for nickel-chromium that is, Group B (H/S = 0.04636 μm and U/S = 0.06454 μm).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These values formed the basic data for the part of the study and were subjected to statistical analysis. From each group of specimen, one sample was selected at random and was prepared for SEM evaluation[ 2 10 14 ] (JSM 840A SEM, JEOL). The photomicrographs of the representative areas of each division of each group were obtained for qualitative evaluation of the surface topography.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%