Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1996 Mar;7(1):64-72.
doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1996.070108.x.

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

Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

S Matarasso et al. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996 Mar.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources