Cargando…

Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations

The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instrume...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baldi, Domenico, Colombo, Jacopo, Gavoglio, Paola, De Giorgis, Luisa, Motta, Franco, Lugas, Andrea, Lertora, Enrico, Schierano, Gianmario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8838951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35161104
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15031159
_version_ 1784650249159049216
author Baldi, Domenico
Colombo, Jacopo
Gavoglio, Paola
De Giorgis, Luisa
Motta, Franco
Lugas, Andrea
Lertora, Enrico
Schierano, Gianmario
author_facet Baldi, Domenico
Colombo, Jacopo
Gavoglio, Paola
De Giorgis, Luisa
Motta, Franco
Lugas, Andrea
Lertora, Enrico
Schierano, Gianmario
author_sort Baldi, Domenico
collection PubMed
description The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instruments through SEM and roughness analysis: manual steel curette, manual titanium curette, ultrasonic steel insert, and ultrasonic peek insert. Forty crowns were made, ten of each type of material. For each material, five crowns were manually instrumented with steel inserts (curette 11-12, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) and titanium (Wingrove 3-4, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) on the lingual and buccal surfaces, respectively, and the other five crowns were instrumented with an ultrasonic peek insert (ICS-IC1, Mectron, Carasco, Italy) on the buccal surface and steel (PS, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) on the lingual surface. At this point, surface roughness analysis was carried out. The data were analyzed with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Therefore, it was decided to conduct two analyses with a Kruskal–Wallis test and Bonferroni post hoc test. Then, the instrumented crowns were analyzed by SEM. The analysis of the data shows that the highest average roughness was within the composite group, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. Significant differences existed between the groups, between the materials, and between the different instruments (p-value < 0.05). In the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, the classic steel insert eliminated the residues of golden finishing. The peek insert created alterations on all tested surfaces. The steel curette did not create particular problems, with the exception of zirconium, where it was possible to observe some scratch lines. Instrumentation with the titanium curette created deeper incisions than the steel curette in the composite and disilicate. The best results came from the ultrasonic steel insert, while the best material appeared to be disilicate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8838951
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88389512022-02-13 Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations Baldi, Domenico Colombo, Jacopo Gavoglio, Paola De Giorgis, Luisa Motta, Franco Lugas, Andrea Lertora, Enrico Schierano, Gianmario Materials (Basel) Article The use of new prosthetic materials makes it necessary to establish adequate hygienic protocols. It was decided to make prosthetic crowns from four different materials: composite, lithium disilicate, metal ceramic, and zirconium, and to evaluate the effects on the surfaces of four different instruments through SEM and roughness analysis: manual steel curette, manual titanium curette, ultrasonic steel insert, and ultrasonic peek insert. Forty crowns were made, ten of each type of material. For each material, five crowns were manually instrumented with steel inserts (curette 11-12, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) and titanium (Wingrove 3-4, PDT, Missoula, MT, USA) on the lingual and buccal surfaces, respectively, and the other five crowns were instrumented with an ultrasonic peek insert (ICS-IC1, Mectron, Carasco, Italy) on the buccal surface and steel (PS, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) on the lingual surface. At this point, surface roughness analysis was carried out. The data were analyzed with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Therefore, it was decided to conduct two analyses with a Kruskal–Wallis test and Bonferroni post hoc test. Then, the instrumented crowns were analyzed by SEM. The analysis of the data shows that the highest average roughness was within the composite group, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. Significant differences existed between the groups, between the materials, and between the different instruments (p-value < 0.05). In the qualitative analysis carried out by SEM, the classic steel insert eliminated the residues of golden finishing. The peek insert created alterations on all tested surfaces. The steel curette did not create particular problems, with the exception of zirconium, where it was possible to observe some scratch lines. Instrumentation with the titanium curette created deeper incisions than the steel curette in the composite and disilicate. The best results came from the ultrasonic steel insert, while the best material appeared to be disilicate. MDPI 2022-02-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8838951/ /pubmed/35161104 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15031159 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Baldi, Domenico
Colombo, Jacopo
Gavoglio, Paola
De Giorgis, Luisa
Motta, Franco
Lugas, Andrea
Lertora, Enrico
Schierano, Gianmario
Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title_full Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title_fullStr Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title_full_unstemmed Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title_short Roughness and SEM Analysis of Manual and Ultrasonic Instrumentation over Different Crown Materials for Dental Implants Restorations
title_sort roughness and sem analysis of manual and ultrasonic instrumentation over different crown materials for dental implants restorations
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8838951/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35161104
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15031159
work_keys_str_mv AT baldidomenico roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT colombojacopo roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT gavogliopaola roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT degiorgisluisa roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT mottafranco roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT lugasandrea roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT lertoraenrico roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations
AT schieranogianmario roughnessandsemanalysisofmanualandultrasonicinstrumentationoverdifferentcrownmaterialsfordentalimplantsrestorations