Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
5-Year IF – 2.0, IF – 1.9, JCI (2024) – 0.43
Scopus CiteScore – 4.3
Q1 in SJR 2024, SJR score – 0.598, H-index: 49 (SJR)
ICV – 161.00; MNiSW – 70 pts
Initial editorial assessment and first decision within 24 h

ISSN 1899–5276 (print), ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2020, vol. 29, nr 2, February, p. 177–182

doi: 10.17219/acem/112606

Publication type: original article

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Evaluation of the three methods of bacterial decontamination on implants with three different surfaces

Paweł Kubasiewicz-Ross1,A,C,D, Małgorzata Fleischer2,B,C, Artur Pitułaj1,A,B,C, Jakub Hadzik1,A,D,F, Izabela Nawrot-Hadzik3,E, Olga Bortkiewicz2,B,C, Marzena Dominiak1,F, Kamil Jurczyszyn1,A,B,C,E

1 Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

2 Department of Microbiology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

3 Department of Biology and Pharmaceutical Botany, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Background. The main goal of the treatment of the peri-implantitis is to decontaminate the surface of the implant, thereby enabling further treatment involving, e.g., guided bone regeneration. Since new implants of the rougher surface were introduced to the common dental practice, decontamination is even more difficult.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate 3 different methods of decontaminating implants with 3 different surfaces.
Material and Methods. A total of 30 dental implants with 3 different surface types (machined, sandblasted, and acid-etched (SLA) and hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated) were used in the study. Each group of implants was coated with Escherichia coli biofilm and cultivated. Afterwards, the implants were transferred to the jaw model and treated with a different method: sonic scaler mechanical debridement with a Woodpecker PT5 sonic scaler (1st group), and mechanical debridement with sonic scaler and with the combination with chemical agent Perisolv® (2nd group), and with Er:YAG laser treatment (3rd group). Each implant was treated with the specific method and sent for further microbiological evaluation.
Results. The highest level of decontamination was achieved for machined-surface implants and the lowest for HA-coated implants. The method with the highest biofilm reduction was the scaler and Perisolv® group. The highest level of decontamination of HA-coated implants were achieved for Er:YAG laser irradiation method.
Conclusion. In the following paper, the superiority of combined chemical-mechanical method of decontaminating the surface of the implant on SLA and machined-surface implants was proved. On the contrary, Er:YAG laser irradiation was reported as the best option for decontamination of the HA-coated implants. In our opinion, it is a significant finding, revealing that the method of peri-implantitis management should be considered in accordance to the type of the surface of the implant (customized to the surface of the implant).

Key words

implant surface, implant surface treatment, bacterial coating

References (20)

  1. Lindhe J, Meyle J. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus report of the sixth European workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl):282–285.
  2. Mahato N, Wu X, Wang L. Management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review, 2010–2015. SpringerPlus. 2016;5:105.
  3. Khammissa RA, Feller L, Meyerov R, Lemmer J. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: Bacterial infection. SADJ. 2012;67(2):70–74.
  4. Medina CMA, Villa-Correa YA. Gram-negative enteric rods associated to early implant failure and peri-implantitis: Case report and systematic literature review. Int J Odontostomat. 2015;9(2):329–336.
  5. Leonhardt A, Dahlén G, Renvert S. Five-year clinical, microbiological, and radiological outcome following treatment of peri-implantitis in man. J Periodontol. 2003;74(10):1415–1422.
  6. Saffarpour A, Nozari A, Fekrazad R, Saffarpour A, Heibati MN, Iranparvar K. Microstructural evaluation of contaminated implant surface treated by laser, photodynamic therapy, and chlorhexidine 2 percent. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(5):1019–1026.
  7. Mengel R, Buns CE, Mengel C, Flores-de-Jacoby L. An in vitro study of the treatment of implant surfaces with different instruments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13(1):91–96.
  8. Kuo HN, Mei HI, Liu TK, Liu TY, Lo LJ, Lin CL. In vitro laser treatment platform construction with dental implant thread surface on bacterial adhesion for peri-implantitis. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4732302.
  9. Suzuki JB. Salvaging implants with an Nd:YAG Laser: A novel approach to a growing problem. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(10):756–761.
  10. Arısan V, Karabuda ZC, Arıcı SV, Topçuoğlu N, Külekçi G. A randomized clinical trial of an adjunct diode laser application for the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015;33(11):547–554.
  11. Kuroda K, Okido M. Hydroxyapatite coating of titanium implants using hydroprocessing and evaluation of their osteoconductivity. Bioinorg Chem Appl. 2012;2012:730693.
  12. Shumaker ND, Metcalf BT, Toscano NT, Holtzclaw DJ. Periodontal and periimplant maintenance: A critical factor in long-term treatment success. Comp Contin Educ Dent. 2009;30(7):388–390,392,394 passim; quiz 407,418.
  13. Mellado-Valero A, Buitrago-Vera P, Solá-Ruiz MF, Ferrer-García JC. Decontamination of dental implant surface in peri-implantitis treatment: A literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013;1;18(6):869–876.
  14. Subramani K, Wismeijer D. Decontamination of titanium implant surface and re-osseointegration to treat peri-implantitis: A literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(5):1043–1054.
  15. Meyle J. Mechanical, chemical and laser treatments of the implant surface in the presence of marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5(Suppl):S71–81.
  16. Blasi A, Iorio-Siciliano V, Pacenza C, Pomingi F, Matarasso S, Raspe­rini G. Biofilm removal from implants supported restoration using different instruments: A 6-month comparative multicenter clinical study. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2016;27(2):e68–73.
  17. Dennison DK, Huerzeler MB, Quinones C, Caffesse RG. Contaminated implant surfaces: An in vitro comparison of implant surface coating and treatment modalities for decontamination. J Periodontol. 1994;65(10):942–948.
  18. Marotti J, Tortamano P, Cai S, Ribeiro MS, Franco JE, de Campos TT. Decontamination of dental implant surfaces by means of photodynamic therapy. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28(1):303–309.
  19. Eick S, Meier I, Spoerle F, et al. In vitro-activity of Er:YAG laser in comparison with other treatment modalities on biofilm ablation from implant and tooth surfaces. PLoS One. 2017;26;12(1):e0171086.
  20. Kreisler M, Kohnen W, Marinello C, et al. Bactericidal effect of the Er:YAG laser on dental implant surfaces: An in vitro study. J Perio­dontol. 2002;73(11):1292–1298.
© Wroclaw Medical University