Titanium Brush
Titanium Brush - Related Videos
08:19
Digital Printing of Titanium Dioxide for Dye Sensitized Solar Cells
0 Views •
Cited by 7 •
2016
This paper investigates the suitability of inkjet printing for the manufacturing of dye-sensitized solar cells. A binder-free TiO2 nanoparticle ink was formulated and printed onto a FTO glass substrate. The printed layer was fabricated into a cell with an active area of 0.25 cm2 and an efficiency of 3.5%.
13:57
Preparation and Friction Force Microscopy Measurements of Immiscible, Opposing Polymer Brushes
0 Views •
Cited by 4 •
2014
The methodology to perform friction force microscopy experiments for contacting brushes is presented: Two polymer brushes that are grafted from (a) substrates and (b) colloidal probes are slid to show that, by using two contacting immiscible brush systems, friction in sliding contacts is reduced compared to miscible brush systems.
07:05
In Vitro Evaluation of The Effects Of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Lasers Used on Titanium Cylinder
0 Views •
2025
In this study, Er,Cr:YSGG and diode lasers applied separately to the flat surface of a total of 96 specially designed titanium cylinders. A thermocouple placed on the other surface and the temperature was measured. Surface roughness analyzed by profilometer, SEM and AFM.
05:45
Assessing Disaster Resilience of Concrete with Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles
0 Views •
2025
This protocol describes the assessment of whether applying titanium dioxide to concrete enhances its physical properties, thereby increasing its resistance to the effects of natural disasters caused by extreme events.
06:56
Particles without a Box: Brush-first Synthesis of Photodegradable PEG Star Polymers under Ambient Conditions
0 Views •
Cited by 17 •
2013
Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) brush-arm star polymers (BASPs) with narrow mass distributions and tunable nanoscopic sizes are synthesized in via ring opening metathesis polymerization (ROMP) of a PEG-norbornene macromonomer followed by transfer of portions of the resulting living brush initiator to vials containing varied amounts of a rigid, photo-cleavable bis-norbornene crosslinker.
FAQs
The bristles act through controlled mechanical abrasion rather than relying on a chemical agent. Contact with the hard surface disrupts the structure of bacterial biofilm, plaque, and contaminated deposits, allowing them to be removed during cleaning. This mechanism is important because deposits can remain attached to implant surfaces unless the brushing action sufficiently disturbs their physical attachment.
Effectiveness depends on the brush design, the force applied during treatment, and the characteristics of the implant or device surface. These variables influence how directly the bristles contact deposits and how efficiently contamination is disrupted. They also affect the risk of undesirable surface alteration, so cleaning performance must be considered together with surface preservation.
Mechanical cleaning can remove contaminated deposits, but the same abrasive action may affect the underlying surface if application conditions are unsuitable. The objective is therefore not simply maximum brushing force. Clinicians and researchers must balance deposit removal with preservation of the surface characteristics that are relevant to the device and to subsequent treatment, including regenerative or reconstructive procedures.
During treatment, the brush is applied to the contaminated hard surface to mechanically disrupt and remove biofilm, plaque, or other deposits. This cleaning may be incorporated into surgical or nonsurgical procedures, depending on the clinical situation. The resulting decontamination is particularly relevant when managing peri-implant inflammation or preparing the implant surface for further treatment.
Research commonly examines their use for decontaminating dental implants and other medical devices with hard surfaces. In dentistry, a major context is peri-implant inflammation, where bacterial contamination must be addressed as part of treatment. Studies may also evaluate whether cleaning is suitable before regenerative or reconstructive procedures while limiting undesirable changes to the implant surface.
Evaluation focuses on how effectively the procedure removes bacterial biofilm, plaque, and contaminated deposits from the hard surface. Researchers also consider whether the brush causes undesirable surface alteration, because successful decontamination is not sufficient if the underlying device surface is adversely changed. Brush design, application force, and surface characteristics help explain differences between treatment outcomes.