Hasturk Hatice, Nguyen Daniel Huy, Sherzai Homa, Song Xiaoping, Soukos Nikos, Bidlack Felicitas B, Van Dyke Thomas E
J Dent Hyg. 2013 Aug;87(4):200-11.
The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of the removal of biofilm with hand scalers of different material composition on the surface of implant abutments by assessing the surface topography and residual plaque after scaling using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Titanium implant analogs from 3 manufacturers (Straumann USA LLC, Andover, Maine, Nobel BioCare USA LLC, Yorba Linda, Cali, Astra Tech Implant Systems, Dentsply, Mölndal, Sweden) were mounted in stone in plastic vials individually with authentic prosthetic abutments. Plaque samples were collected from a healthy volunteer, inoculated into growth medium and incubated with the abutments anaerobically for 1 week. A blinded, calibrated hygienist performed scaling to remove the biofilm using 6 implant scalers (in triplicate), 1 scaler for 1 abutment. The abutments were mounted on an imaging stand and processed for SEM. Images were captured in 3 randomly designated areas of interest on each abutment. Analysis of the implant polished abutment surface and plaque area measurements were performed using ImageJ image analysis software. Surface alterations were characterized by the number, length, depth and the width of the scratches observed.
Glass filled resin scalers resulted in significantly more and longer scratches on all 3 abutment types compared to other scalers, while unfilled resin scalers resulted in the least surface change (p < 0.05). Filled resin-graphite reinforced scalers, carbon fiber reinforced resin scalers and titanium scalers resulted in more superficial scratches compared to glass filled resin, as well as more scratches than unfilled resin. No statistically significant differences were found between scalers and abutments with regard to plaque removal.
The impact of scalers on implant abutment surfaces varies between abutment types presumably due to different surface characteristics with no apparent advantage of one abutment type over the other with regard to resistance to surface damage. Unfilled resin was found consistently to be the least damaging to abutment surfaces, although all scalers of all compositions caused detectable surface changes to polished surfaces of implant abutments.
本研究的目的是通过使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)评估洁治后的表面形貌和残留菌斑,比较不同材料成分的手动洁治器去除种植体基台上生物膜的效果。
来自3个制造商(美国Straumann公司,缅因州安多弗;美国Nobel BioCare公司,加利福尼亚州约巴林达;瑞典登士柏公司的Astra Tech种植系统,瑞典莫恩达尔)的钛种植体代型分别与真实的修复基台一起安装在塑料瓶中的石膏里。从一名健康志愿者处采集菌斑样本,接种到生长培养基中,并与基台一起厌氧培养1周。一名经过校准的盲法口腔卫生士使用6种种植体洁治器(每组3个)进行洁治以去除生物膜,每个基台使用1种洁治器。将基台安装在成像支架上并进行SEM处理。在每个基台的3个随机指定的感兴趣区域拍摄图像。使用ImageJ图像分析软件对种植体抛光基台表面和菌斑面积进行测量分析。通过观察到的划痕数量、长度、深度和宽度来表征表面变化。
与其他洁治器相比,玻璃填充树脂洁治器在所有3种基台类型上产生的划痕明显更多、更长,而未填充树脂洁治器导致的表面变化最小(p < 0.05)。与玻璃填充树脂相比,填充树脂 - 石墨增强洁治器、碳纤维增强树脂洁治器和钛洁治器产生的划痕更浅,并且比未填充树脂产生的划痕更多。在菌斑清除方面,洁治器和基台之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。
洁治器对种植体基台表面的影响因基台类型而异,可能是由于不同的表面特性,在抗表面损伤方面,一种基台类型相对于另一种基台类型没有明显优势。尽管所有成分的洁治器都会对种植体基台的抛光表面造成可检测到的表面变化,但始终发现未填充树脂对基台表面的损伤最小。