Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evaluation of the three methods of bacterial decontamination on implants with three different surfaces.
Kubasiewicz-Ross, Pawel; Fleischer, Malgorzata; Pitulaj, Artur; Hadzik, Jakub; Nawrot-Hadzik, Izabela; Bortkiewicz, Olga; Dominiak, Marzena; Jurczyszyn, Kamil.
Afiliación
  • Kubasiewicz-Ross P; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Fleischer M; Department of Microbiology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Pitulaj A; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Hadzik J; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Nawrot-Hadzik I; Department of Biology and Pharmaceutical Botany, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Bortkiewicz O; Department of Microbiology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Dominiak M; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
  • Jurczyszyn K; Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
Adv Clin Exp Med ; 29(2): 177-182, 2020 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32097545
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 ErYAG 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 ErYAG laser irradiation method.

CONCLUSIONS:

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, ErYAG 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).
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Descontaminación / Durapatita / Láseres de Estado Sólido Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Adv Clin Exp Med Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Polonia

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Implantes Dentales / Descontaminación / Durapatita / Láseres de Estado Sólido Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Adv Clin Exp Med Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Polonia