Evaluation of the Safety and Efficiency of Novel Metallic Implant Scaler Tips Manufactured by the Powder Injection Molding Technique

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2017 Jul 13

PMID 28697771

Citations 1

Authors

Kyung A Chun

Kee-Yeon Kum

Woo-Cheol Lee

Seung-Ho Baek

Hae-Won Choi

Won-Jun Shon

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Although many studies have compared the properties of ultrasonic scaling instruments, it remains controversial as to which is most suitable for implant scaling. This study evaluated the safety and efficiency of novel metallic ultrasonic scaler tips made by the powder injection molding (PIM) technique on titanium surfaces.

Methods: Mechanical instrumentation was carried out using four types of metal scaler tips consisting of copper (CU), bronze (BR), 316 L stainless steel (316 L), and conventional stainless steel (SS) tips. The instrumented surface alteration image of samples was viewed with scanning electron microscope (SEM) and surface profile of the each sample was investigated with confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Arithmetic mean roughness (Ra) and maximum height roughness (Rmax) of titanium samples were measured and dissipated power of the scaler tip was estimated for scaling efficiency.

Results: The average Ra values caused by the 316 L and SS tip were about two times higher than those of the CU and BR tips (p < 0.05). The Rmax value showed similar results. The efficiency of the SS tip was about 3 times higher than that of CU tip, the 316 L tip is about 2.7 times higher than that of CU tip, and the BR tip is about 1.2 times higher than that of CU tip.

Conclusions: Novel metallic bronze alloy ultrasonic scaler tip minimally damages titanium surfaces, similar to copper alloy tip. Therefore, this bronze alloy scaler tip may be promising instrument for implant maintenance therapy.

Citing Articles

Mechanical Properties and Wear Resistance of Commercial Stainless Steel Used in Dental Instruments.

Go H, Bang J, Kim K, Kim K, Kwon J Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(4).

PMID: 33572235 PMC: 7915631. DOI: 10.3390/ma14040827.

References

Hallmon W, Waldrop T, Meffert R, Wade B . A comparative study of the effects of metallic, nonmetallic, and sonic instrumentation on titanium abutment surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1996; 11(1):96-100. View

Berglundh T, Gotfredsen K, Zitzmann N, Lang N, Lindhe J . Spontaneous progression of ligature induced peri-implantitis at implants with different surface roughness: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007; 18(5):655-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01397.x. View

Seol H, Heo S, Koak J, Kim S, Baek S, Lee S . Surface alterations of several dental materials by a novel ultrasonic scaler tip. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(4):801-10. View

BARNES C, Fleming L, Mueninghoff L . SEM evaluation of the in-vitro effects of an air-abrasive system on various implant surfaces. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6(4):463-9. View

OMahony A, MacNeill S, Cobb C . Design features that may influence bacterial plaque retention: a retrospective analysis of failed implants. Quintessence Int. 2001; 31(4):249-56. View

Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Marinello C, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B . Soft tissue reaction to de novo plaque formation on implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1992; 3(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030101.x. View

Ruhling A, Kocher T, Kreusch J, Plagmann H . Treatment of subgingival implant surfaces with Teflon-coated sonic and ultrasonic scaler tips and various implant curettes. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5(1):19-29. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050103.x. View

Unursaikhan O, Lee J, Cha J, Park J, Jung U, Kim C . Comparative evaluation of roughness of titanium surfaces treated by different hygiene instruments. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2012; 42(3):88-94. PMC: 3395000. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.3.88. View

Lea S, Walmsley A . Mechano-physical and biophysical properties of power-driven scalers: driving the future of powered instrument design and evaluation. Periodontol 2000. 2009; 51:63-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00300.x. View

10.

Fox S, MORIARTY J, Kusy R . The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 1990; 61(8):485-90. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1990.61.8.485. View

11.

Quirynen M, van der Mei H, Bollen C, SCHOTTE A, Marechal M, Doornbusch G . An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res. 1993; 72(9):1304-9. DOI: 10.1177/00220345930720090801. View

12.

Baek S, Shon W, Bae K, Kum K, Lee W, Park Y . Evaluation of the safety and efficiency of novel metallic ultrasonic scaler tip on titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 23(11):1269-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02302.x. View

13.

Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Sculean A, Georg T, Scherbaum W, Becker J . Effects of an Er:YAG laser and the Vector ultrasonic system on the biocompatibility of titanium implants in cultures of human osteoblast-like cells. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 14(6):784-92. DOI: 10.1046/j.0905-7161.2003.00954.x. View

14.

Mengel R, Buns C, Mengel C, Flores-de-Jacoby L . An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13(1):91-6. View

15.

Quirynen M, Marechal M, Busscher H, Weerkamp A, Darius P, van Steenberghe D . The influence of surface free energy and surface roughness on early plaque formation. An in vivo study in man. J Clin Periodontol. 1990; 17(3):138-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1990.tb01077.x. View

16.

Kawashima H, Sato S, Kishida M, Yagi H, Matsumoto K, Ito K . Treatment of titanium dental implants with three piezoelectric ultrasonic scalers: an in vivo study. J Periodontol. 2007; 78(9):1689-94. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2007.060496. View

17.

Elter C, Heuer W, Demling A, Hannig M, Heidenblut T, Bach F . Supra- and subgingival biofilm formation on implant abutments with different surface characteristics. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23(2):327-34. View

18.

Van de Velde E, Thielens P, Schautteet H, Vanclooster R . [Subcutaneous emphysema of the oral floor during cleaning of a bridge fixed on an IMZ implant. Case report]. Rev Belge Med Dent (1984). 1991; 46(3):64-71. View

19.

Ramaglia L, di Lauro A, Morgese F, Squillace A . Profilometric and standard error of the mean analysis of rough implant surfaces treated with different instrumentations. Implant Dent. 2006; 15(1):77-82. DOI: 10.1097/01.id.0000202425.35072.4e. View

20.

Subramani K, Jung R, Molenberg A, Hammerle C . Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24(4):616-26. View