Department of Periodontology, Philipps-University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Strasse 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
Department of Statistics, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Jul;22(6):2149-2160. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2287-8. Epub 2017 Dec 27.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of treatment modalities on titanium surface characteristics and surrounding tissues.
Eighteen participants each had four titanium healing caps (HC) attached to four newly inserted implants. After healing, each HC was randomly assigned to either (1) titanium curettes (TC), (2) stainless steel ultrasonic tip (PS), (3) erythritol air-polishing powder (EP), or (4) only rubber cup polishing (CON). Probing depths (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), matrix metalloproteinase 8 (MMP-8), and periopathogens were recorded before and 3 months following instrumentation. After final assessments, HCs were removed, cleaned, and subjected to (a) bacterial colonization (Streptococcus gordonii, 24 h; mixed culture, 24 h) and (b) gingival fibroblasts (5 days). HC surfaces were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
No significant differences between the groups were evident before or after instrumentation for PD and BOP (except TC showed a significant decrease in PD; p = 0.049). MMP-8 levels and bacterial loads were always very low. MMP-8 decreased further after instrumentation, while bacteria levels showed no change. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were evident in bacterial colonization or fibroblast attachment. A comparison of the overall mean SEM surface roughness scores showed a significant difference between all groups (p < 0.0001) with the lowest roughness after EP.
All treatments performed yielded comparable outcomes and may be implemented safely.
Clinicians may fear implant surface damage, but all instrumentation types are safe and non-damaging. They can be implemented as needed upon considering the presence of staining and soft and hard deposits.
本研究旨在评估治疗方式对钛表面特性和周围组织的影响。
18 名参与者每人在 4 个新植入的种植体上各安装 4 个钛愈合帽。愈合后,每个愈合帽随机分为(1)钛刮治器(TC)、(2)不锈钢超声尖(PS)、(3)赤藓糖醇空气抛光粉(EP)或(4)仅用橡胶杯抛光(CON)。在器械处理前后,记录探诊深度(PD)、探诊出血(BOP)、基质金属蛋白酶 8(MMP-8)和牙周病原体。最后评估后,取下愈合帽,清洁后进行(a)细菌定植(链球菌 24 小时;混合培养 24 小时)和(b)牙龈成纤维细胞(5 天)。用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)分析愈合帽表面。
器械处理前后,各组之间的 PD 和 BOP 无显著差异(TC 组 PD 显著降低除外;p=0.049)。MMP-8 水平和细菌负荷一直很低。器械处理后 MMP-8 进一步降低,而细菌水平无变化。细菌定植和纤维细胞附着无显著差异(p>0.05)。SEM 表面粗糙度总平均值的比较显示,所有组之间均有显著差异(p<0.0001),EP 后粗糙度最低。
所有治疗方法均产生了类似的结果,且安全可行。
临床医生可能担心种植体表面受损,但所有器械类型均安全且无损伤。可根据染色和软、硬沉积物的存在情况,按需使用。