Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study
Objectives Implantoplasty (IP) is a treatment option for peri‐implantitis. Mechanical concerns were raised on fracture resistance of implants subjected to this procedure. This study aimed to compare two methods of IP in terms of implant wear and fracture resistance, and of surface topography. Materi...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral implants research 2021-03, Vol.32 (3), p.324-336 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 336 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 324 |
| container_title | Clinical oral implants research |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Sivolella, Stefano Brunello, Giulia Michelon, Filippo Concheri, Gianmaria Graiff, Lorenzo Meneghello, Roberto |
| description | Objectives
Implantoplasty (IP) is a treatment option for peri‐implantitis. Mechanical concerns were raised on fracture resistance of implants subjected to this procedure. This study aimed to compare two methods of IP in terms of implant wear and fracture resistance, and of surface topography.
Material and methods
Eighteen cylindrical screw‐shaped dental implants (4 mm diameter, 13 mm length) with an external hexagonal connection were used. IP was performed on the first 6‐mm implant surface with a sequence of burs or diamond sonic tips, both followed by an Arkansas finishing. IP duration and implant weight variation were recorded. Micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) was used to evaluate material loss. Implant fracture resistance was assessed by static compression test. Surface topography analysis was performed with a stylus profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (SEM‐EDS) was applied for implant surface morphology and elemental characterization.
Results
Micro‐CT showed less material loss in sonic compared to burs. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean fracture resistance values reached in bur and sonic, both followed by Arkansas, and with respect to control. IP performed with burs led to a smoother surface compared to sonic. Equivalent final surface roughness was found after Arkansas in both IP procedures. SEM‐EDS showed a deburring effect associated to sonic and revealed carbon and aluminum peaks attributable to contamination with sonic diamond tips and Arkansas bur, respectively.
Conclusions
IP with sonic diamond tips was found to be more conservative in terms of structure loss. This could have a clinical relevance in case of narrow‐diameter implants. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/clr.13702 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2471456678</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2499028284</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3532-e9b7080b238a30fbdc1dbf82cac6db20f680b9745f29270254f2c7a9b37e281e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10E9LwzAYBvAgipvTg19AAl700O1N0n_xNsrUwUAQPZcmTSGjbWrSKv32Rjs9COaQHN4fD3kfhC4JLIk_K1nbJWEJ0CM0JzFAABGQYzQHDlGQkJjM0JlzewCIecpP0YwxFhIC8Rxttk1XF21v_O368Q5nhRW6VFgM1uF3h0tdNKYtsTOtlrjXnVvidYt1i991bw12_VCO5-ikKmqnLg7vAr3eb16yx2D39LDN1rtAsojRQHGRQAqCsrRgUIlSklJUKZWFjEtBoYr9kCdhVFFO_TpRWFGZFFywRNGUKLZAN1NuZ83boFyfN9pJVfsNlBlcTsOEhFEcJ6mn13_o3gy29b_zinOgKU1Dr24nJa1xzqoq76xuCjvmBPKvbnPfbf7drbdXh8RBNKr8lT9lerCawIeu1fh_Up7tnqfIT0ULgQ8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2499028284</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Sivolella, Stefano ; Brunello, Giulia ; Michelon, Filippo ; Concheri, Gianmaria ; Graiff, Lorenzo ; Meneghello, Roberto</creator><creatorcontrib>Sivolella, Stefano ; Brunello, Giulia ; Michelon, Filippo ; Concheri, Gianmaria ; Graiff, Lorenzo ; Meneghello, Roberto</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
Implantoplasty (IP) is a treatment option for peri‐implantitis. Mechanical concerns were raised on fracture resistance of implants subjected to this procedure. This study aimed to compare two methods of IP in terms of implant wear and fracture resistance, and of surface topography.
Material and methods
Eighteen cylindrical screw‐shaped dental implants (4 mm diameter, 13 mm length) with an external hexagonal connection were used. IP was performed on the first 6‐mm implant surface with a sequence of burs or diamond sonic tips, both followed by an Arkansas finishing. IP duration and implant weight variation were recorded. Micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) was used to evaluate material loss. Implant fracture resistance was assessed by static compression test. Surface topography analysis was performed with a stylus profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (SEM‐EDS) was applied for implant surface morphology and elemental characterization.
Results
Micro‐CT showed less material loss in sonic compared to burs. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean fracture resistance values reached in bur and sonic, both followed by Arkansas, and with respect to control. IP performed with burs led to a smoother surface compared to sonic. Equivalent final surface roughness was found after Arkansas in both IP procedures. SEM‐EDS showed a deburring effect associated to sonic and revealed carbon and aluminum peaks attributable to contamination with sonic diamond tips and Arkansas bur, respectively.
Conclusions
IP with sonic diamond tips was found to be more conservative in terms of structure loss. This could have a clinical relevance in case of narrow‐diameter implants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0905-7161</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0501</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/clr.13702</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33341106</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Denmark: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Aluminum ; bone implant interactions ; Compression ; Compression tests ; Computed tomography ; Contamination ; CT imaging ; Deburring ; Dental implants ; Dental materials ; Dental Polishing ; Dental prosthetics ; Dentistry ; Diamond ; Diamonds ; Fracture toughness ; Materials Testing ; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning ; Morphology ; Profilometers ; Scanning electron microscopy ; Spectroscopy ; Statistical analysis ; Styli ; surface chemistry ; Surface Properties ; Surface roughness ; Tips ; Topography ; Transplants & implants ; Wear resistance ; X-Ray Microtomography</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral implants research, 2021-03, Vol.32 (3), p.324-336</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3532-e9b7080b238a30fbdc1dbf82cac6db20f680b9745f29270254f2c7a9b37e281e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3532-e9b7080b238a30fbdc1dbf82cac6db20f680b9745f29270254f2c7a9b37e281e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1436-0085 ; 0000-0003-1916-1640</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fclr.13702$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fclr.13702$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33341106$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sivolella, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunello, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michelon, Filippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Concheri, Gianmaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graiff, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meneghello, Roberto</creatorcontrib><title>Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study</title><title>Clinical oral implants research</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><description>Objectives
Implantoplasty (IP) is a treatment option for peri‐implantitis. Mechanical concerns were raised on fracture resistance of implants subjected to this procedure. This study aimed to compare two methods of IP in terms of implant wear and fracture resistance, and of surface topography.
Material and methods
Eighteen cylindrical screw‐shaped dental implants (4 mm diameter, 13 mm length) with an external hexagonal connection were used. IP was performed on the first 6‐mm implant surface with a sequence of burs or diamond sonic tips, both followed by an Arkansas finishing. IP duration and implant weight variation were recorded. Micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) was used to evaluate material loss. Implant fracture resistance was assessed by static compression test. Surface topography analysis was performed with a stylus profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (SEM‐EDS) was applied for implant surface morphology and elemental characterization.
Results
Micro‐CT showed less material loss in sonic compared to burs. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean fracture resistance values reached in bur and sonic, both followed by Arkansas, and with respect to control. IP performed with burs led to a smoother surface compared to sonic. Equivalent final surface roughness was found after Arkansas in both IP procedures. SEM‐EDS showed a deburring effect associated to sonic and revealed carbon and aluminum peaks attributable to contamination with sonic diamond tips and Arkansas bur, respectively.
Conclusions
IP with sonic diamond tips was found to be more conservative in terms of structure loss. This could have a clinical relevance in case of narrow‐diameter implants.</description><subject>Aluminum</subject><subject>bone implant interactions</subject><subject>Compression</subject><subject>Compression tests</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Contamination</subject><subject>CT imaging</subject><subject>Deburring</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>Dental materials</subject><subject>Dental Polishing</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Diamond</subject><subject>Diamonds</subject><subject>Fracture toughness</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</subject><subject>Morphology</subject><subject>Profilometers</subject><subject>Scanning electron microscopy</subject><subject>Spectroscopy</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Styli</subject><subject>surface chemistry</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Surface roughness</subject><subject>Tips</subject><subject>Topography</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><subject>Wear resistance</subject><subject>X-Ray Microtomography</subject><issn>0905-7161</issn><issn>1600-0501</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10E9LwzAYBvAgipvTg19AAl700O1N0n_xNsrUwUAQPZcmTSGjbWrSKv32Rjs9COaQHN4fD3kfhC4JLIk_K1nbJWEJ0CM0JzFAABGQYzQHDlGQkJjM0JlzewCIecpP0YwxFhIC8Rxttk1XF21v_O368Q5nhRW6VFgM1uF3h0tdNKYtsTOtlrjXnVvidYt1i991bw12_VCO5-ikKmqnLg7vAr3eb16yx2D39LDN1rtAsojRQHGRQAqCsrRgUIlSklJUKZWFjEtBoYr9kCdhVFFO_TpRWFGZFFywRNGUKLZAN1NuZ83boFyfN9pJVfsNlBlcTsOEhFEcJ6mn13_o3gy29b_zinOgKU1Dr24nJa1xzqoq76xuCjvmBPKvbnPfbf7drbdXh8RBNKr8lT9lerCawIeu1fh_Up7tnqfIT0ULgQ8</recordid><startdate>202103</startdate><enddate>202103</enddate><creator>Sivolella, Stefano</creator><creator>Brunello, Giulia</creator><creator>Michelon, Filippo</creator><creator>Concheri, Gianmaria</creator><creator>Graiff, Lorenzo</creator><creator>Meneghello, Roberto</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-0085</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-1640</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202103</creationdate><title>Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study</title><author>Sivolella, Stefano ; Brunello, Giulia ; Michelon, Filippo ; Concheri, Gianmaria ; Graiff, Lorenzo ; Meneghello, Roberto</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3532-e9b7080b238a30fbdc1dbf82cac6db20f680b9745f29270254f2c7a9b37e281e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Aluminum</topic><topic>bone implant interactions</topic><topic>Compression</topic><topic>Compression tests</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Contamination</topic><topic>CT imaging</topic><topic>Deburring</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>Dental materials</topic><topic>Dental Polishing</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Diamond</topic><topic>Diamonds</topic><topic>Fracture toughness</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Microscopy, Electron, Scanning</topic><topic>Morphology</topic><topic>Profilometers</topic><topic>Scanning electron microscopy</topic><topic>Spectroscopy</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Styli</topic><topic>surface chemistry</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Surface roughness</topic><topic>Tips</topic><topic>Topography</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><topic>Wear resistance</topic><topic>X-Ray Microtomography</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sivolella, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brunello, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Michelon, Filippo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Concheri, Gianmaria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graiff, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meneghello, Roberto</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sivolella, Stefano</au><au>Brunello, Giulia</au><au>Michelon, Filippo</au><au>Concheri, Gianmaria</au><au>Graiff, Lorenzo</au><au>Meneghello, Roberto</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral implants research</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Implants Res</addtitle><date>2021-03</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>324</spage><epage>336</epage><pages>324-336</pages><issn>0905-7161</issn><eissn>1600-0501</eissn><abstract>Objectives
Implantoplasty (IP) is a treatment option for peri‐implantitis. Mechanical concerns were raised on fracture resistance of implants subjected to this procedure. This study aimed to compare two methods of IP in terms of implant wear and fracture resistance, and of surface topography.
Material and methods
Eighteen cylindrical screw‐shaped dental implants (4 mm diameter, 13 mm length) with an external hexagonal connection were used. IP was performed on the first 6‐mm implant surface with a sequence of burs or diamond sonic tips, both followed by an Arkansas finishing. IP duration and implant weight variation were recorded. Micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT) was used to evaluate material loss. Implant fracture resistance was assessed by static compression test. Surface topography analysis was performed with a stylus profilometer. Scanning electron microscopy–energy dispersive X‐ray spectroscopy (SEM‐EDS) was applied for implant surface morphology and elemental characterization.
Results
Micro‐CT showed less material loss in sonic compared to burs. No statistically significant difference was found between the mean fracture resistance values reached in bur and sonic, both followed by Arkansas, and with respect to control. IP performed with burs led to a smoother surface compared to sonic. Equivalent final surface roughness was found after Arkansas in both IP procedures. SEM‐EDS showed a deburring effect associated to sonic and revealed carbon and aluminum peaks attributable to contamination with sonic diamond tips and Arkansas bur, respectively.
Conclusions
IP with sonic diamond tips was found to be more conservative in terms of structure loss. This could have a clinical relevance in case of narrow‐diameter implants.</abstract><cop>Denmark</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33341106</pmid><doi>10.1111/clr.13702</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-0085</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1916-1640</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0905-7161 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral implants research, 2021-03, Vol.32 (3), p.324-336 |
| issn | 0905-7161 1600-0501 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2471456678 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Aluminum bone implant interactions Compression Compression tests Computed tomography Contamination CT imaging Deburring Dental implants Dental materials Dental Polishing Dental prosthetics Dentistry Diamond Diamonds Fracture toughness Materials Testing Microscopy, Electron, Scanning Morphology Profilometers Scanning electron microscopy Spectroscopy Statistical analysis Styli surface chemistry Surface Properties Surface roughness Tips Topography Transplants & implants Wear resistance X-Ray Microtomography |
| title | Implantoplasty: Carbide burs vs diamond sonic tips. An in vitro study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T15%3A01%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implantoplasty:%20Carbide%20burs%20vs%20diamond%20sonic%20tips.%20An%20in%20vitro%20study&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20implants%20research&rft.au=Sivolella,%20Stefano&rft.date=2021-03&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=324&rft.epage=336&rft.pages=324-336&rft.issn=0905-7161&rft.eissn=1600-0501&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/clr.13702&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2499028284%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2499028284&rft_id=info:pmid/33341106&rfr_iscdi=true |