Development and viability of biofilms grown on experimental abutments mimicking dental implants: An in vivo model

Background: To determine whether an experimental abutment mimicking the macro- and microstructure of a dental implant is a suitable method for recovering biofilm, and to describe the features of biofilms formed around such abutments on healthy implants. Material and Methods: Experimental abutments were used in 15 patients without peri-implant diseases. After 14 days' absence of dental hygiene in this area, the abutments were retrieved and analyzed through confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. The biofilm formation on the surface of the first 5 abut-ments was determined by a fluorescence-staining method using SYTO9 nucleic acid stain. In order to study the biofilm's coverage and vitality, 10 additional abutments were assessed using live & dead bacterial viability. Descriptive and bivariate analyses of the data were performed. Results: A global plaque coverage of the abutments was observed in all cases. The submucosal area of the abutment was mostly covered with biofilm (over 21%). Moreover, significant differences between supra- and subgingival locations were detected. Conclusions: This in vivo experimental model allows detailed observation of the extensive plaque growth found on exposed experimental abutments mimicking dental implants when hygiene measures are absent. The biofilm cover-age is significantly higher in the supragingival zone than in the subgingival portion

No disponible

Microbiota Analysis of Biofilms on Experimental Abutments Mimicking Dental Implants: An In Vivo Model.

BACKGROUND: The microbiota colonizing dental implants has been said to be similar to the microbiome surrounding teeth. In the absence of inflammation, a biofilm with pathologic bacteria can cover implant surfaces exposed to the oral cavity, for example, due to a remodeling process. The aim of the present study is to identify microbiota surrounding exposed dental implants in patients with and without a history of periodontitis through a deep-sequencing approach. METHODS: An experimental abutment with the same surface and structure as a commercially available dental implant was used. Bacterial DNA was isolated, and the 16S ribosomal RNA gene was amplified and sequenced. Multiplexed tag-encoded sequencing of DNA from the samples was performed, and the reads were processed by metagenomic rapid annotation. RESULTS: A wide variety of bacteria, 96 species, were identified. The most frequently found bacteria were Fusobacterium nucleatum and Prevotella denticola. Some species generally associated with periodontitis were found to a greater extent in patients without a history of periodontitis. Some bacteria that have never been described as part of the oral microbiome were identified in the present sample. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of data suggests that the bacteria surrounding exposed dental implants form a diverse microbiome regardless of the periodontal profile of patients. Further research is needed to clarify the role of these microorganisms in the oral environment.

Aesthetic perception of single implants placed in the anterior zone. A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Several aesthetic indexes have been described to assess implant aesthetics. The aim of this study was to compare the aesthetic assessment made by dental professionals and students of single-tooth implants placed in the upper incisors. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey study using a subjective questionnaire to assess the aesthetics in 3 implant supported single-tooth cases in the anterior maxilla was performed. The interviewed subjects were divided into 4 groups: dentists with experience in implant treatment, dentists without experience in implants and 3rd and 5th year dental students. The questionnaire consisted of 2 visual analogue scales (VAS) to evaluate aesthetics, the pink esthetic score (PES), the white esthetic score (WES) and the simplified papilla index (PI). RESULTS: One-hundred dentists and one-hundred dental students filled the aesthetic assessment questionnaire. The results showed that the subjects were more critical than reference values, specially concerning prosthetic issues. The differences between groups were more obvious in the case with the best result. On the other hand, few differences were detected in the remaining cases. Regarding soft tissue and crown features, experienced dentists in implant dentistry were the most demanding. Cronbach's Alpha showed values ≥ 0,8 in the questionnaire in every case, which indicates an adequate reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists and dental students have different opinions when assessing aesthetics of single tooth implant supported cases. Experience and area of expertise seem to influence the evaluation of aesthetics in the anterior region