Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/67772
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBenyapha Sirinirunden_US
dc.contributor.authorCarlos Garaicoa-Pazminoen_US
dc.contributor.authorHom Lay Wangen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-02T15:03:35Z-
dc.date.available2020-04-02T15:03:35Z-
dc.date.issued2019-01-01en_US
dc.identifier.issn19424434en_US
dc.identifier.issn08822786en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85074866256en_US
dc.identifier.other10.11607/jomi.7409en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85074866256&origin=inwarden_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/67772-
dc.description.abstract© 2019 by Quintessence Publishing Co Inc. Purpose: To evaluate topographic changes and effectiveness of mechanical instrumentation upon machined (MA) and roughened (RG) surfaces of dental implants. Materials and Methods: The coronal one-third of seven RG and seven MA implants was coated with a mixture of cyanoacrylate and toluidine blue dye to resemble calculus. Implants were cleaned with three curettes (SS: stainless steel, PT: plastic, TI: titanium), two ultrasonic tips (UM: metal tip, UP: plastic tip), a titanium brush (TB), and an air-polishing device (AA) until visibly clean. Additionally, a simulation of 1- and 5-year supportive peri-implant therapy (SPT) was performed on 14 implants using the aforementioned instruments with 20 strokes/40 s (T1) or 100 strokes/200 s (T5). Each implant was evaluated using stereomicroscopy, atomic force microscopy, and scanning electron microscopy. Results: UM was the most effective instrument, with 0% average percentage of residual artificial calculus (RAC), followed by TB (2.89%) and UP (4.90%). SS was more effective than TI (15.43% vs 20.12% RAC, respectively), while PT failed to remove any deposit (100% RAC). AA completely removed deposits on RG surfaces but not MA surfaces (26.61% RAC). Noticeable topographic changes were observed between both implant surfaces. RG surfaces became less rough, whereas MA surfaces became rougher at both T1 and T5 with the exception of AA. Plastic- and titanium-like remnants were noted after debridement with PT, SS, and TI, respectively. Conclusion: Artificial calculus removal by mechanical instrumentation, with the exception of PT, was proven to be clinically effective. All instruments induced minor to major topographic changes upon dental implant surfaces. AA did not remarkably change MA and RG surfaces at both micrometer and nanometer levels. Findings from this study may impact the selection of instruments or devices used during SPT protocols.en_US
dc.subjectDentistryen_US
dc.titleEffects of mechanical instrumentation with commercially available instruments used in supportive peri-implant therapy: An in vitro studyen_US
dc.typeJournalen_US
article.title.sourcetitleInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implantsen_US
article.volume34en_US
article.stream.affiliationsUniversity of Michigan School of Dentistryen_US
article.stream.affiliationsChiang Mai Universityen_US
Appears in Collections:CMUL: Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in CMUIR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.