Profilometric and standard error of the mean analysis of rough implant surfaces treated with different instrumentations

Implant Dent. 2006 Mar;15(1):77-82. doi: 10.1097/


Purpose: This study evaluated, in vitro, the effects of different instrumentations used in the treatment of peri-implantitis on implant surfaces coated with hydroxyapatite or titanium plasma spray (TPS).

Materials and methods: There were 14 cylindrical rough implants used, including 7 hydroxyapatite and 7 TPS coated. Split in 2 parts for a total of 24 experimental surfaces, implants were treated with a stainless-steel curette, plastic curette, ultrasonic scaler tip, and air-powder-water spray. There was 1 hydroxyapatite and 1 TPS implant used as controls. Profilometry and scanning electron microscopy were used to examine instrumented surfaces for variations in surface topography.

Results: All experimental procedures determined changes on tested rough implant surfaces. Such alterations were related to the implant coating material, and the procedure consisting in coating removal and/or leveling of surface roughness.

Conclusion: Although a plastic curette and air-powder-water spray induced less implant surface alterations, these instrumentations left deposits on the surface that may affect, in vivo, the tissue healing process.

MeSH terms

  • Air Abrasion, Dental / instrumentation
  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible / chemistry
  • Dental Implants*
  • Dental Materials / chemistry*
  • Dental Prosthesis Design
  • Dental Scaling / instrumentation
  • Durapatite / chemistry
  • Humans
  • Materials Testing
  • Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
  • Periodontics / instrumentation*
  • Plastics / chemistry
  • Stainless Steel / chemistry
  • Subgingival Curettage / instrumentation
  • Surface Properties
  • Titanium / chemistry
  • Ultrasonic Therapy / instrumentation
  • Water / chemistry


  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible
  • Dental Implants
  • Dental Materials
  • Plastics
  • Water
  • Stainless Steel
  • Durapatite
  • Titanium