Micro-morphometric assessment of titanium plasma-sprayed coating removal using burs for the treatment of peri-implant disease

被引:20
作者
Rimondini, L
Simoncini, FC
Carrassi, A
机构
[1] Univ Milan, Dept Oral Med & Pathol, I-20100 Milan, Italy
[2] Univ Bologna, Dept Periodontol, Bologna, Italy
关键词
oral implant; implant surface; peri-implantitis; peri-implant disease; titanium plasma-sprayed; roughness;
D O I
10.1034/j.1600-0501.2000.011002129.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
This study evaluated, in vitro, the effectiveness of diamond and carbide burs, and bur sequences to remove the plasma-sprayed titanium coating from IMZ fixture surfaces. Fifteen polishing procedures were tested. They included the use of 12, 16, 30 bladed carbide burs or bevered carbide burs and 30, 15, 8 mu m mean-particles-size diamond burs. The treated surfaces were evaluated with profilometer and SEM. Worn burs and titanium debris produced by the grinding were observed with SEM. All procedures produce smoother surfaces than baseline plasma-sprayed surfaces for both Ra and Rz(DIN) parameters (P<0.001). A roughening effect of the 8 mu m mean-grit diamond bur and 30 bladed burs were noted. The single carbide burs produce polished surfaces affected by waviness. Waviness was minimized by sequence or diamond bur use. The carbide bur blades were variously damaged after their use. In contrast, the grit of diamond burs was observed to be clogged by titanium debris whose amount seemed to be inversely related to the diamond mean particle size. Debris produced by diamond burs was granular whereas that produced by carbide bladed burs showed needle or flake morphology. In conclusion, the most effective titanium plasma sprayed removal were obtained by 30 mu m and 15 mu m mean-particle-size diamond burs, i.e. 30 mu m plus 15 mu m diamond burs and carbide 12 plus 16 bladed burs used in sequence.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 138
页数:10
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] ALBREKTSSON T, 1997, CLIN PERIODONTOLOGY, P852
  • [2] Berglundh T, 1992, Clin Oral Implants Res, V3, P1, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030101.x
  • [3] Block C M, 1992, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V7, P441
  • [4] BUSER D, 1989, Z ZAHNARZTL IMPLANTO, V5, P15, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1600-0501.2006.01380.X
  • [5] Carlsson L, 1988, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V3, P21
  • [6] Carrassi A., 1996, Cells and Materials, V6, P111
  • [7] Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effects of an air-abrasive system on dental implants: A comparative in vitro study between machined and plasma-sprayed titanium surfaces
    Chairay, JP
    Boulekbache, H
    Jean, A
    Soyer, A
    Bouchard, P
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1997, 68 (12) : 1215 - 1222
  • [8] CONTAMINATED IMPLANT SURFACES - AN IN-VITRO COMPARISON OF IMPLANT SURFACE COATING AND TREATMENT MODALITIES FOR DECONTAMINATION
    DENNISON, DK
    HUERZELER, MB
    QUINONES, C
    CAFFESSE, RG
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 1994, 65 (10) : 942 - 948
  • [9] ERIKSSON R, 1984, J ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL, V44, P4
  • [10] GAMMAGE D D, 1989, Journal of Oral Implantology, V15, P124