Background:
The use of oral implants to suport fixed and removable prostheses is a widely accepted treatment modality of high success and predictability. Nevertheless peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is a common biological complication in implant therapy.Both complications describe inflammatory conditions that are caused or associated with factors released from the bacterial plaque residing in the pocket between an implant and the adjacent mucosa. While peri-implant mucositis describes a reversible lesión in the soft tissue, peri-implantitis includes not only the mucosa but also bone tissue and may compromise osseointegration. If peri-implantitis is diagnosed, a therapeutic intervention should be initiated as son as posible6. The treatment for peri-implantitis includes, among others, the mechanical decontamination of the surface exposed to the biofilm to eliminate inflammation and to render the exposed surface biocompatible, with re-osseointegration as the ultimate goal. Ideally, the instruments used to effectively clean smooth surfaces should cause minimal or no surface damage, should not create a surface that is more conducive to bacterial colonization and should not affect the implant-soft tissue interface.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is to know if the Tibrush (Straumann®) is more respectful with the implant surface than the principal methods of mechanical debridement.
Material and Methods:
Four groups have been done and each has 4 SLA titanium (IV) Straumann® implants. Every implant had been instrumented for 1 minute in one side and later for the other side of the implant has been instrumented for 3 minutes.The surface treated is 2 mm below and 1mm above the polish-roughness interface of the implants. Imitation of the movements of the treatment has been done. The sample has been prepared for the electron microscope examination and has been analyzed It was rinsed with water, then dehydrated in incremental concentrations of acetone (40-100% in 10%). Subsequently, in hexamethyldisilazane and later dried gold coated for electron microscope and has been analyzed. Then analyze again the changes in the target surface mode using ImageJ 1.48g ® National Institute of Health USA.
Results:
The Tibrush (Straumann ®) was the method that caused less alteration to the surface of the implant followed by the Teflonultrasonic scaler, stainless steel curettes and conventional ultrasonic scaler. The differences between the titanium brush and the other groups were statistically significant.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Mechanical debridement through Tibrush (Straumann ®) is the method it causes less alteration in the surface of the implant.
Background:
The use of oral implants to suport fixed and removable prostheses is a widely accepted treatment modality of high success and predictability. Nevertheless peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is a common biological complication in implant therapy.Both complications describe inflammatory conditions that are caused or associated with factors released from the bacterial plaque residing in the pocket between an implant and the adjacent mucosa. While peri-implant mucositis describes a reversible lesión in the soft tissue, peri-implantitis includes not only the mucosa but also bone tissue and may compromise osseointegration. If peri-implantitis is diagnosed, a therapeutic intervention should be initiated as son as posible6. The treatment for peri-implantitis includes, among others, the mechanical decontamination of the surface exposed to the biofilm to eliminate inflammation and to render the exposed surface biocompatible, with re-osseointegration as the ultimate goal. Ideally, the instruments used to effectively clean smooth surfaces should cause minimal or no surface damage, should not create a surface that is more conducive to bacterial colonization and should not affect the implant-soft tissue interface.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is to know if the Tibrush (Straumann®) is more respectful with the implant surface than the principal methods of mechanical debridement.
Material and Methods:
Four groups have been done and each has 4 SLA titanium (IV) Straumann® implants. Every implant had been instrumented for 1 minute in one side and later for the other side of the implant has been instrumented for 3 minutes.The surface treated is 2 mm below and 1mm above the polish-roughness interface of the implants. Imitation of the movements of the treatment has been done. The sample has been prepared for the electron microscope examination and has been analyzed It was rinsed with water, then dehydrated in incremental concentrations of acetone (40-100% in 10%). Subsequently, in hexamethyldisilazane and later dried gold coated for electron microscope and has been analyzed. Then analyze again the changes in the target surface mode using ImageJ 1.48g ® National Institute of Health USA.
Results:
The Tibrush (Straumann ®) was the method that caused less alteration to the surface of the implant followed by the Teflonultrasonic scaler, stainless steel curettes and conventional ultrasonic scaler. The differences between the titanium brush and the other groups were statistically significant.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Mechanical debridement through Tibrush (Straumann ®) is the method it causes less alteration in the surface of the implant.
Background:
The use of oral implants to suport fixed and removable prostheses is a widely accepted treatment modality of high success and predictability. Nevertheless peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is a common biological complication in implant therapy.Both complications describe inflammatory conditions that are caused or associated with factors released from the bacterial plaque residing in the pocket between an implant and the adjacent mucosa. While peri-implant mucositis describes a reversible lesión in the soft tissue, peri-implantitis includes not only the mucosa but also bone tissue and may compromise osseointegration. If peri-implantitis is diagnosed, a therapeutic intervention should be initiated as son as posible6. The treatment for peri-implantitis includes, among others, the mechanical decontamination of the surface exposed to the biofilm to eliminate inflammation and to render the exposed surface biocompatible, with re-osseointegration as the ultimate goal. Ideally, the instruments used to effectively clean smooth surfaces should cause minimal or no surface damage, should not create a surface that is more conducive to bacterial colonization and should not affect the implant-soft tissue interface.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is to know if the Tibrush (Straumann®) is more respectful with the implant surface than the principal methods of mechanical debridement.
Material and Methods:
Four groups have been done and each has 4 SLA titanium (IV) Straumann® implants. Every implant had been instrumented for 1 minute in one side and later for the other side of the implant has been instrumented for 3 minutes.The surface treated is 2 mm below and 1mm above the polish-roughness interface of the implants. Imitation of the movements of the treatment has been done. The sample has been prepared for the electron microscope examination and has been analyzed It was rinsed with water, then dehydrated in incremental concentrations of acetone (40-100% in 10%). Subsequently, in hexamethyldisilazane and later dried gold coated for electron microscope and has been analyzed. Then analyze again the changes in the target surface mode using ImageJ 1.48g ® National Institute of Health USA.
Results:
The Tibrush (Straumann ®) was the method that caused less alteration to the surface of the implant followed by the Teflonultrasonic scaler, stainless steel curettes and conventional ultrasonic scaler. The differences between the titanium brush and the other groups were statistically significant.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Mechanical debridement through Tibrush (Straumann ®) is the method it causes less alteration in the surface of the implant.
Background:
The use of oral implants to suport fixed and removable prostheses is a widely accepted treatment modality of high success and predictability. Nevertheless peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is a common biological complication in implant therapy.Both complications describe inflammatory conditions that are caused or associated with factors released from the bacterial plaque residing in the pocket between an implant and the adjacent mucosa. While peri-implant mucositis describes a reversible lesión in the soft tissue, peri-implantitis includes not only the mucosa but also bone tissue and may compromise osseointegration. If peri-implantitis is diagnosed, a therapeutic intervention should be initiated as son as posible6. The treatment for peri-implantitis includes, among others, the mechanical decontamination of the surface exposed to the biofilm to eliminate inflammation and to render the exposed surface biocompatible, with re-osseointegration as the ultimate goal. Ideally, the instruments used to effectively clean smooth surfaces should cause minimal or no surface damage, should not create a surface that is more conducive to bacterial colonization and should not affect the implant-soft tissue interface.
Aim/Hypothesis:
The aim of this study is to know if the Tibrush (Straumann®) is more respectful with the implant surface than the principal methods of mechanical debridement.
Material and Methods:
Four groups have been done and each has 4 SLA titanium (IV) Straumann® implants. Every implant had been instrumented for 1 minute in one side and later for the other side of the implant has been instrumented for 3 minutes.The surface treated is 2 mm below and 1mm above the polish-roughness interface of the implants. Imitation of the movements of the treatment has been done. The sample has been prepared for the electron microscope examination and has been analyzed It was rinsed with water, then dehydrated in incremental concentrations of acetone (40-100% in 10%). Subsequently, in hexamethyldisilazane and later dried gold coated for electron microscope and has been analyzed. Then analyze again the changes in the target surface mode using ImageJ 1.48g ® National Institute of Health USA.
Results:
The Tibrush (Straumann ®) was the method that caused less alteration to the surface of the implant followed by the Teflonultrasonic scaler, stainless steel curettes and conventional ultrasonic scaler. The differences between the titanium brush and the other groups were statistically significant.
Conclusions and clinical implications:
Mechanical debridement through Tibrush (Straumann ®) is the method it causes less alteration in the surface of the implant.