Influence of VECTOR2 Polish Fluid on Implant Surface Roughnesses
Standard
Influence of VECTOR2 Polish Fluid on Implant Surface Roughnesses. / Schmage, Petra; Sollich, Meike; Nergiz, Ibrahim; Platzer, Ursula.
In: INT DENT J, Vol. 65, No. S2; 152, 212, 23.09.2015.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › Conference abstract in journal › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Influence of VECTOR2 Polish Fluid on Implant Surface Roughnesses
AU - Schmage, Petra
AU - Sollich, Meike
AU - Nergiz, Ibrahim
AU - Platzer, Ursula
PY - 2015/9/23
Y1 - 2015/9/23
N2 - Aim and purpose: This study aimed to evaluate surface roughnessalterations of 2 implant surface structures after biofilm removingusing an ultrasonic driven cleaning devise with different tips andwith or without additional polishing fluid (PF).Materials and method: Respectively 40 titanium specimen of 2common surfaces (smooth SM, Sa = 0.2 0.02 lm; grit-blastedGB, Sa = 0.86 0.21 lm), were randomly selected into 8 groupsand cultivated with Streptococcus mutans. Then ultrasonic clean-ing was performed using 4 implant cleaning tips with or withoutPF within 1 min: ceramic (C), long (L) and short (S) carbon fibersor natural fibers (N). Average surface roughnesses Sa were assessedlaser profilometrically at 5 areas of each specimen and comparedwith the results before treatment (B). Statistical analysis was car-ried out (one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn correction, t-test,a = 0.05).Results: The cleaning efficiency allowed the analysis. Sa of SMwas not significantly altered by the treatment regardless of PF(without PF: C 0.18 0.02 lm – L 0.21 0.03 lm; with PF: N0.25 0.06 lm – L 0.31 0.12 lm) (p > 0.05). Sa of GB withPF varied not significantly (C 0.95 0.21 lm–S 1.05 0.23 lm)compared to B (p > 0.05). Cleaning reduced Sa of GB significantlyfor C (0.65 0.08 lm) and N 0.67 0.04 lm) without PF(p < 0.05). For all tips Sa of GB differed significantly comparingwith and without PF (p < 0.01).Summary and conclusions: Implant cleaning tips proved reduction,but no alteration without PF on both surfaces. PF increased Sadepending on the surface structure. C tips without PF showedmore abrasion and smoothening, while all fiber tips with PF pro-vided surface removal and roughening. The tested ultrasonic sys-tem can be recommended for implant cleaning regarding surface alterations.
AB - Aim and purpose: This study aimed to evaluate surface roughnessalterations of 2 implant surface structures after biofilm removingusing an ultrasonic driven cleaning devise with different tips andwith or without additional polishing fluid (PF).Materials and method: Respectively 40 titanium specimen of 2common surfaces (smooth SM, Sa = 0.2 0.02 lm; grit-blastedGB, Sa = 0.86 0.21 lm), were randomly selected into 8 groupsand cultivated with Streptococcus mutans. Then ultrasonic clean-ing was performed using 4 implant cleaning tips with or withoutPF within 1 min: ceramic (C), long (L) and short (S) carbon fibersor natural fibers (N). Average surface roughnesses Sa were assessedlaser profilometrically at 5 areas of each specimen and comparedwith the results before treatment (B). Statistical analysis was car-ried out (one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn correction, t-test,a = 0.05).Results: The cleaning efficiency allowed the analysis. Sa of SMwas not significantly altered by the treatment regardless of PF(without PF: C 0.18 0.02 lm – L 0.21 0.03 lm; with PF: N0.25 0.06 lm – L 0.31 0.12 lm) (p > 0.05). Sa of GB withPF varied not significantly (C 0.95 0.21 lm–S 1.05 0.23 lm)compared to B (p > 0.05). Cleaning reduced Sa of GB significantlyfor C (0.65 0.08 lm) and N 0.67 0.04 lm) without PF(p < 0.05). For all tips Sa of GB differed significantly comparingwith and without PF (p < 0.01).Summary and conclusions: Implant cleaning tips proved reduction,but no alteration without PF on both surfaces. PF increased Sadepending on the surface structure. C tips without PF showedmore abrasion and smoothening, while all fiber tips with PF pro-vided surface removal and roughening. The tested ultrasonic sys-tem can be recommended for implant cleaning regarding surface alterations.
UR - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/idj.12195
M3 - Conference abstract in journal
VL - 65
JO - INT DENT J
JF - INT DENT J
SN - 0020-6539
IS - S2; 152
M1 - 212
Y2 - 22 September 2015 through 25 September 2015
ER -