用手和超声器械在钛表面去除牙石的效果。

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
American journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-02-01
Maggie E Eslinger, Vrushali Abhyankar, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Brian R Morrow, Pooja Ajitsankardas
{"title":"用手和超声器械在钛表面去除牙石的效果。","authors":"Maggie E Eslinger, Vrushali Abhyankar, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Brian R Morrow, Pooja Ajitsankardas","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the impact of different instruments on dental implants on titanium discs and simultaneously test how effective they were in removing calculus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Artificial calculus was applied on 36 rectangular areas demarcated on titanium discs. Surface roughness was measured using a stylus profilometer. Calculus was then removed using six different hand or power-driven ultrasonic instruments. Surface roughness measurements D-Ra and D-Rz were then re-calculated. Cleaned distance was divided by total calculus to yield a cleaning ratio and the number of cleaning strokes required to remove the calculus was calculated. All measurements were statistically analyzed independently (two-way ANOVA, Holm-Sidak roughness and cleaning ratios Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks, and Student-Newman-Keuls, α< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ultrasonic magnetostrictive instruments were most efficient in calculus removal and demonstrated a statistically high cleaning ratio percentage (P< 0.001) and required the least number of strokes compared to all the other groups. The resin curettes were the least effective in calculus removal and required the greatest number of strokes. When surface roughness values (D-Ra) were compared between different instruments, statistically significant differences were noted between the resin curettes and ultrasonic magnetostrictive groups, with the resin curette group showing lower values and the Ultrasonic magnetostrictive group showing greater values.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Current research on significance of titanium particles and their possible role in causing periimplantitis emphasizes the importance of using instruments that do not damage the implant surface. Instrumentation causing the least amount of surface roughness should be considered since the risk of damaging the surface outweighs the benefit.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"38 1","pages":"22-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of calculus removal with hand and ultrasonic instruments on titanium surfaces.\",\"authors\":\"Maggie E Eslinger, Vrushali Abhyankar, Franklin Garcia-Godoy, Brian R Morrow, Pooja Ajitsankardas\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the impact of different instruments on dental implants on titanium discs and simultaneously test how effective they were in removing calculus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Artificial calculus was applied on 36 rectangular areas demarcated on titanium discs. Surface roughness was measured using a stylus profilometer. Calculus was then removed using six different hand or power-driven ultrasonic instruments. Surface roughness measurements D-Ra and D-Rz were then re-calculated. Cleaned distance was divided by total calculus to yield a cleaning ratio and the number of cleaning strokes required to remove the calculus was calculated. All measurements were statistically analyzed independently (two-way ANOVA, Holm-Sidak roughness and cleaning ratios Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks, and Student-Newman-Keuls, α< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ultrasonic magnetostrictive instruments were most efficient in calculus removal and demonstrated a statistically high cleaning ratio percentage (P< 0.001) and required the least number of strokes compared to all the other groups. The resin curettes were the least effective in calculus removal and required the greatest number of strokes. When surface roughness values (D-Ra) were compared between different instruments, statistically significant differences were noted between the resin curettes and ultrasonic magnetostrictive groups, with the resin curette group showing lower values and the Ultrasonic magnetostrictive group showing greater values.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Current research on significance of titanium particles and their possible role in causing periimplantitis emphasizes the importance of using instruments that do not damage the implant surface. Instrumentation causing the least amount of surface roughness should be considered since the risk of damaging the surface outweighs the benefit.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"22-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价不同器械对钛盘种植体的影响,同时考察不同器械对牙结石的清除效果。方法:在钛盘上划出的36个长方形区域上应用人工牙石。表面粗糙度用触针轮廓仪测量。然后使用六种不同的手动或电动超声仪器去除结石。然后重新计算表面粗糙度测量值D-Ra和D-Rz。清洗距离除以总结石得到清洗比,并计算清除结石所需的清洗冲程数。所有测量结果进行独立统计分析(双因素方差分析,Holm-Sidak粗糙度和清洁度比值;Kruskal-Wallis秩的单因素方差分析;Student-Newman-Keuls, α< 0.05)。结果:超声磁致伸缩器械清除牙石最有效,具有统计学意义上的高清洁率(P< 0.001),与其他所有组相比,所需的笔划次数最少。树脂刮石器去除牙石的效果最差,需要的笔划次数最多。当比较不同仪器的表面粗糙度值(D-Ra)时,树脂刮管组与超声磁致伸缩组之间存在统计学差异,树脂刮管组值较低,超声磁致伸缩组值较大。临床意义:目前关于钛颗粒的意义及其在引起种植体周围炎中的可能作用的研究强调了使用不损伤种植体表面的器械的重要性。由于损坏表面的风险大于收益,因此应考虑造成最小表面粗糙度的仪器。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of calculus removal with hand and ultrasonic instruments on titanium surfaces.

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of different instruments on dental implants on titanium discs and simultaneously test how effective they were in removing calculus.

Methods: Artificial calculus was applied on 36 rectangular areas demarcated on titanium discs. Surface roughness was measured using a stylus profilometer. Calculus was then removed using six different hand or power-driven ultrasonic instruments. Surface roughness measurements D-Ra and D-Rz were then re-calculated. Cleaned distance was divided by total calculus to yield a cleaning ratio and the number of cleaning strokes required to remove the calculus was calculated. All measurements were statistically analyzed independently (two-way ANOVA, Holm-Sidak roughness and cleaning ratios Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks, and Student-Newman-Keuls, α< 0.05).

Results: Ultrasonic magnetostrictive instruments were most efficient in calculus removal and demonstrated a statistically high cleaning ratio percentage (P< 0.001) and required the least number of strokes compared to all the other groups. The resin curettes were the least effective in calculus removal and required the greatest number of strokes. When surface roughness values (D-Ra) were compared between different instruments, statistically significant differences were noted between the resin curettes and ultrasonic magnetostrictive groups, with the resin curette group showing lower values and the Ultrasonic magnetostrictive group showing greater values.

Clinical significance: Current research on significance of titanium particles and their possible role in causing periimplantitis emphasizes the importance of using instruments that do not damage the implant surface. Instrumentation causing the least amount of surface roughness should be considered since the risk of damaging the surface outweighs the benefit.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of dentistry
American journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
57
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信