Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2015

01-03-2015 | Original Article

Surface scratch assessment of titanium implant abutments and cementum following instrumentation with metal curettes

Authors: P. M. Anastassiadis, C. Hall, V. Marino, P. M. Bartold

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 2/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

This study was conducted to compare the surface scratch resistance of titanium implant abutments and cementum to evaluate the impact of scaling with metal curettes on both surfaces.

Materials and methods

A standard in vitro force of 14 N was used to assess the scratch width and depth created by curettes on extracted human tooth roots and titanium implant abutments. Scratch width and depth were analysed using a stereomicroscope and non-contact surface profilometry.

Results

The mean force applied during test scaling procedures by experienced volunteer operators was 14 N. Mechanical scaling using this force in vitro of cementum produced a mean scratch width of 59.4 ± 1.9 μm, N = 20, and scratch depth of 0.86 ± 0.03 μm, N = 20, compared to the titanium abutments’ mean scratch width of 30.8 ± 1.9 μm, N = 6, and scratch depth of 0.34 ± 0.02 μm, N = 6. These differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Although there a number of factors in the clinical situation which are not easily reproducible in vitro, this proof-of-principle in vitro study is the first to confirm quantitatively that titanium abutments had a significantly greater scratch resistance than cementum when metal curettes were used on these surfaces. This information should be considered, especially if there is a preferred choice of metal instruments for effective dental prophylactic procedures for the maintenance of titanium dental implants.

Clinical relevance

Clinical dogma suggests that titanium implant abutment surfaces should not be instrumented with metal instruments due to scratching of the surface. However, since cementum is softer than titanium, the logic of this tenet seems flawed. This study demonstrated for the first time that titanium abutments undergo less scratch damage during scaling with metal curettes than does cementum. Metal curettes may be used on titanium abutments with as much confidence as for root planing on natural teeth.
Literature
1.
Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T (2011) Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 38:286–294CrossRefPubMed
2.
Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV (2012) Treatment of peri-implantitis: what interventions are effective? A Cochrane systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 5(Suppl):S21–S41PubMed
3.
Casarin RC, Ribeiro FV, Sallum AW, Sallum EA, Nociti-Jr FH, Casati MZ (2009) Root surface defect produced by hand instruments and ultrasonic scaler with different power settings: an in vitro study. Braz Dent J 20:58–63CrossRefPubMed
4.
Arabaci T, Cicek Y, Canakci C (2007) Sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontal treatment: a review. Int J Dent Hyg 5:2–12CrossRefPubMed
5.
Brookshire FV, Nagy WW, Dhuru VB, Ziebert GJ, Chada S (1997) 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. J Prospect Dent 78:286–294CrossRef
6.
Louropoulou A, Slot DE, Van der Weijden FA (2012) Titanium surface alterations following the use of different mechanical instruments: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implant Res 23:643–658CrossRef
7.
D’Silva IV, Nayak RP, Cherian KM, Mulky MJ (1979) An evaluation of the root topography following periodontal instrumentation—a scanning electron microscopic study. J Periodontol 50:283–290CrossRefPubMed
8.
Garnick JJ, Dent J (1989) A scanning electron micrographical study of root surfaces and subgingival bacteria after hand and ultrasonic instrumentation. J Periodontol 60:441–447CrossRefPubMed
9.
Kocher T, Fanghänel J, Sawaf H, Litz R (2001) Substance loss caused by scaling with different sonic scaler inserts—an in vitro study. J Clin Periodontol 28:9–15CrossRefPubMed
10.
Bye FL, Ghilzon RS, Cafesse RG (1986) Root surface roughness after the use of different modes of instrumentation. Int J Periodontol Rest Dent 6:36–47
11.
Matarasso S, Quaremba G, Coraggio F, Vaia E, Cafiero C, Lang NP (1996) Maintenance of implants: an in vitro study of titanium implant surface modifications subsequent to the application of different prophylaxis procedures. Clin Oral Implant Res 7:64–72CrossRef
12.
Mengel R, Buns CE, Mengel C, Flores-de-Jacoby L (1998) An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 13:91–96
13.
Sato S, Kishida M, Ito K (2004) The comparative effect of ultrasonic scalers on titanium surfaces: an in vitro study. J Periodontol 75:1269–1273CrossRefPubMed
14.
Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Yagi H, Matsumoto K, Ito K (2007) Treatment of titanium dental implants with three piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers: an in vivo study. J Periodontol 78:1689–1694CrossRefPubMed
15.
Mann M, Parmar D, Walmsley AD, Lea SC (2012) Effect of plastic-covered ultrasonic scalers on titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implant Res 23:76–82CrossRef
16.
Walsh LJ (2009) Dental hygiene in the implant patient: practical guidelines. Auxiliary 19:22–24
17.
Silverstein LH, Kurtzman GM (2006) Oral hygiene and maintenance of dental implants. Dent Today 25:70–75PubMed
18.
Ho SP, Balooch M, Goodis HE, Marshall GW, Marshall SJ (2004) Ultrastructure and nanomechanical properties of cementum dentin junction. J Biomed Mater Res Part A 68A:343–351CrossRef
19.
20.
Lu H, Zhang X, Knauss WG (1997) Uniaxial, shear, and Poisson relaxation and their conversion to bulk relaxation: studies on poly (methyl methacrylate). Polym Eng Sci 37:1053–1064CrossRef
21.
Brostow W (2007) Mechanical properties. In: Mark JE (ed) Physical properties of polymers handbook. Springer, New York, pp 423–425CrossRef
22.
Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2004) Oral implant surfaces: part 1—review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them. Int J Prosthodont 17:536–543.23PubMed
23.
da Rocha SS, Adabo GL, Henriques GEP, Nóbilo MA (2006) Vickers hardness of cast commercially pure titanium and Ti-6Al-4 V alloy submitted to heat treatments. Braz Dent J 17(2):126–129CrossRefPubMed
24.
Klinge B, Gustafsson A, Berglundh T (2002) A systematic review of the effect of anti-infective therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis. J Clin Periodontol 29(Suppl 3):213–225CrossRefPubMed
25.
Renvert S, Roos-Jansaker AM, Claffey N (2008) Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a literature review. J Clin Periodontol 35(Suppl 8):305–315CrossRefPubMed
26.
Loe H (1993) Periodontal diseases: a brief historical perspective. Periodontol 2000(2):712
27.
Coldiron NB, Yukna RA, Weir J, Caudill RF (1990) A quantitative study of cementum removal with hand curettes. J Periodontol 61:293–299CrossRefPubMed
28.
Hasturk H, Nguyen DH, Sherzai H, Song X, Soukos N, Bidlack FB, Van Dyke TE (2013) Comparison of the impact of scaler material composition on polished titanium implant abutment surfaces. J Dent Hyg 87(4):200–211PubMed
29.
Cirano FR, Romito GA, Todescan JH. Determination of root dentin and cementum micro hardness. Braz J Oral Sci (ISSN: 1677–3217) vol 3 Num 8 30
30.
Zappa U, Röthlisberger JP, Simona C, Case D (1993) In vivo scaling and root planing forces in molars. J Periodontol 64:349–354CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zappa U, Cadosch J, Simona C, Graf H, Case D (1991) In vivo scaling and root planing forces. J Periodontol 62:335–340CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bartold PM, Van dyke TE (2013) Periodontitis: a host-mediated disruption of microbial homeostasis. Unlearning learned concepts. Periodontol 2000 62:203–217CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Größner-Schreiber B, Griepentrog M, Haustein I, Müller WD, Lange KP, Briedigkeit H, Göbel UB (2001) Plaque formation on surface modified dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implant Res 12:543–551CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Surface scratch assessment of titanium implant abutments and cementum following instrumentation with metal curettes
Authors
P. M. Anastassiadis
C. Hall
V. Marino
P. M. Bartold
Publication date
01-03-2015
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 2/2015
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1257-7

Other articles of this Issue 2/2015

Clinical Oral Investigations 2/2015 Go to the issue

Original Article

Photodynamic killing of Enterococcus faecalis in dentinal tubules using mTHPC incorporated in liposomes and invasomes

Original Article

Clinical results of implant placement in resorbed ridges using simultaneous guided bone regeneration: a multicenter case series

Original Article

Five-year results of vital pulp therapy in permanent molars with irreversible pulpitis: a non-inferiority multicenter randomized clinical trial

Original Article

A micro-computed tomography study of the relationship between radicular grooves and root canal morphology in mandibular first premolars

Original Article

Saliva substitutes in combination with high-fluoride gel on dentin remineralization

Original Article

Influence of surface treatment on osseointegration of dental implants: histological, histomorphometric and radiological analysis in vivo