Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/173596
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChegeni, Ehsan-
dc.contributor.authorEspaña Tost, A. J. (Antonio Jesús)-
dc.contributor.authorBarbosa de Figueiredo, Rui Pedro-
dc.contributor.authorValmaseda Castellón, Eduardo-
dc.contributor.authorArnabat Domínguez, Josep-
dc.date.accessioned2021-02-02T12:23:19Z-
dc.date.available2021-02-02T12:23:19Z-
dc.date.issued2020-09-30-
dc.identifier.issn2304-6767-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2445/173596-
dc.description.abstractPeri-implant diseases are one of the main complications of dental implants. There are no well-established guidelines regarding laser parameters for implant decontamination. The aim was to compare two different settings of irradiation of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser on dental implants regarding surface alterations and determine the best settings for less damage on the surface. An in vitro study was performed and 30 areas of dental implants were irradiated with two different regimes of energy per pulse 50 and 84 mJ (1.5 W/30 Hz and 2.5 W/30 Hz). A total of 30 sites of implants were irradiated with three different tips (10 surfaces per tip): conical (RTF3-17 mm), side firing (SFT8-18 mm) and cylindrical (MGG6-6 mm). The following descriptive classification on surface damage was employed: no damage (class A), minimal effects (class B), metal fall with melting (class C), and destruction with carbonization (class D). The assessment was made through a descriptive scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Side firing and conical tips at 50 mJ were classified as class A. Side firing at 84 mJ and cylindrical tips 50 mJ and 84 mJ were classified as class B. Finally, class C defects were found in the areas where the conical tip was used at 84 mJ. Side firing and conical tips at 50 mJ do not seem to damage the implant surface.-
dc.format.extent10 p.-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.publisherMDPI-
dc.relation.isformatofReproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109-
dc.relation.ispartofDentistry Journal (MDPI), 2020, vol. 8, num. 4, p. 109-118-
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109-
dc.rightscc-by (c) Chegeni, Ehsan et al., 2020-
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/es-
dc.sourceArticles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)-
dc.subject.classificationLàsers-
dc.subject.classificationImplants dentals-
dc.subject.classificationMucosa oral-
dc.subject.otherLasers-
dc.subject.otherDental implants-
dc.subject.otherOral mucosa-
dc.titleEffect of an Er,Cr:YSGG laser on the surface of implants: a descriptive comparative study of 3 different tips and pulse energies-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion-
dc.identifier.idgrec703687-
dc.date.updated2021-02-02T12:23:20Z-
dc.rights.accessRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.identifier.pmid33008108-
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Odontoestomatologia)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
703687.pdf6.66 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons