Bacterial adhesion and colonization differences between zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo human study

Abstract

PurposeSeveral parameters have been described for determining the success or failure of dental implants. The surface properties of transgingival implant components have had a great impact on the long-term success of dental implants. The purpose of this study was to compare the tendency of two periodontal pathogens to adhere to and colonize zirconia abutments and titanium alloys both in hard surfaces and soft tissues.MethodsTwelve patients participated in this study. Three months after implant placement, the abutments were connected. Five weeks following the abutment connections, the abutments were removed, probing depth measurements were recorded, and gingival biopsies were performed. The abutments and gingival biopsies taken from the buccal gingiva were analyzed using real-time polymerase chain reaction to compare the DNA copy numbers of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and total bacteria. The surface free energy of the abutments was calculated using the sessile water drop method before replacement. Data analyses used the Mann Whitney U-test, and P-values below 0.05 find statistical significance.ResultsThe present study showed no statistically significant differences between the DNA copy numbers of A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, and total bacteria for both the titanium and zirconia abutments and the biopsies taken from their buccal gingiva. The differences between the free surface energy of the abutments had no influence on the microbiological findings.ConclusionsZirconia surfaces have comparable properties to titanium alloy surfaces and may be suitable and safe materials for the long-term success of dental implants.

Long‐Term Survival and Peri‐Implant Health of Titanium Implants with Zirconia Abutments: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…In contrast, a recent study showed zirconia abutments presented a smaller microgap . Also, no significant difference was observed between zirconia and titanium abutments in the amount of oral pathological bacteria, pro‐inflammatory cytokine, and bone metabolism mediator profiles …”

“…11 Also, no significant difference was observed between zirconia and titanium abutments in the amount of oral pathological bacteria, pro-inflammatory cytokine, and bone metabolism mediator profiles. 12,13 Moreover, zirconia abutments presented discrepant machinability in the clinical application. One of the most common complications of zirconia abutments is incidental fracture or chipping, which may be associated with several factors, including occlusal force distribution, the mechanical strength of abutment material, abutment design, and manufacturing process.…”

In vitro adherence of Candida albicans to zirconia surfaces

“…The common esthetical impairments at the critical interface between the marginal gingiva and the prosthetic components (Ozkurt & Kazazoglu, 2011) may be avoided by using ceramic abutments and transgingival components for implant restorations (Hahnel, Rosentritt, Handel, & Burgers, 2009). Finally, the biocompatibility and reduced proneness of microorganisms to adhere (Hisbergues et al, 2009; Scarano, Piattelli, Caputi, Favero, & Piattelli, 2004) make zirconia a suitable dental implant material with clinical success rates almost comparable to titanium implants (Do Nascimento et al, 2013; Lee et al, 2011; de Oliveira et al, 2012; Rimondini, Cerroni, Carrassi, & Torricelli, 2002; Scarano et al, 2004).…”

“…While much information is available on bacterial colonization of dental ceramic materials (Al‐Ahmad et al, 2010; van Brakel et al, 2011; Do Nascimento et al, 2013; Egawa, Miura, Kato, Saito, & Yoshinari, 2013; Hahnel et al, 2009; Lee et al, 2011; de Oliveira et al, 2012; Rosentritt et al, 2009; Sardin, Morrier, Benay, & Barsotti, 2004; Scotti et al, 2007; Viitaniemi, Abdulmajeed, Sulaiman, Soderling, & Narhi, 2017; Yamane et al, 2013), less is known about fungal adherence to zirconia surfaces (Burgers et al, 2010; Dal Piva et al, 2018; do Nascimento, Pita, Pedrazzi, de Albuquerque Junior, & Ribeiro, 2013; Ehrman et al, 2006; Li et al, 2012). This in vitro study intended to characterize the surface properties such as roughness and surface‐free energy of glazed and polished monolithic yttria‐stabilized zirconia (Y‐TZ P ) polycrystal ceramics and to evaluate the ability of C. albicans and salivary bacteria, Staphylococcus epidermidis, mixed with C. albicans , respectively, to adhere to these substrata.…”

Internal bacterial colonization of implants: association with peri‐implant bone loss

“…Studies evaluating the internal colonization of implants applied cultivation (Persson et al 1996;van Winkelhoff et al 2000), scanning electron microscope equipped with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (Rimondini et al 2001), DNA probe analysis (Callan et al 2005), or DNA checkerboard hybridization (do Nascimento et al 2011). Real-time polymerase chain reaction (realtime PCR) was used for the evaluation of bacterial colonization of implant surfaces in humans (Th€ one-M€ uhling et al 2010;de Oliveira et al 2012). For the identification and quantification of periodontopathogenic bacteria, real-time PCR has been introduced and compared with cultivation (Jervøe-Storm et al 2005;Boutaga et al 2006;Verner et al 2006).…”