Biofilm Analysis of Retrieved Dental Implants after Different Peri-Implantitis Treatments

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to analyse the planktonic growth of Streptococcus mutans on the surfaces of three implants retrieved after three different peri-implantitis treatments. Three implants from a male patient with high levels of bone loss were treated by mechanical debridement, chemical decontamination, and implantoplasty. After 4 months of follow-up, the implants were removed. The growth and biofilm formation were measured by spectrophotometry (OD630 nm) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), after 48 hours of incubation. Results showed an average of Streptococcus mutans planktonic growth over the implants of 0.21 nm (mechanical debridement), 0.16 nm (chemical decontamination), and 0.15 nm (implantoplasty). Data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05 for chemical decontamination and implantoplasty). Implantoplasty and chemical decontamination showed the lowest levels of planktonic growth, indicating a possible influence of the modification procedures on the titanium surface on the initial biofilm attachment.

Mechanical and biological complications after implantoplasty—A systematic review

“…Kappa scores regarding agreement on the articles to be included in the full‐text analysis and those finally chosen were 0.91 and 0.95, respectively ( p < 0.001). Out of a total of 391 records assessed, 26 publications were finally included: six laboratory (Chan et al, ; Costa‐Berenguer et al, ; Gehrke, Aramburú Júnior, Dedavid, & Shibli, ; Sharon, Shapira, Wilensky, Abu‐Hatoum, & Smidt, ; de Souza Júnior et al, ; Tribst, Piva, Shibli, Borges, & Tango, ), two preclinical in vivo (Schwarz, Mihatovic, Golubovic, Becker, & Sager, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Mihatovic, Golubovic, & Becker, ), and 18 clinical publications (Englezos, Cosyn, Koole, Jacquet, & De Bruyn, ; Geremias et al, ; Matarasso et al, ; Nart, de Tapia, Pujol, Pascual, & Valles, ; Pommer et al, ; Ramanauskaite, Becker, Juodzbalys, & Schwarz, ; Romeo et al, ; Sapata, de Souza, Sukekava, Villar, & Neto, ; Schwarz et al, ; Schwarz, John, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Mainusch, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, John, Schmucker, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, Sahm, & Becker, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Iglhaut, et al, ; Suh, Simon, Jeon, Choi, & Kim, ; Thierbach & Eger, ). The two preclinical in vivo publications (Schwarz, Mihatovic, et al, ; Schwarz, Sahm, Mihatovic, et al, ) and the clinical of Romeo et al () and Romeo et al () publications reported on different aspects basically of the same study population.…”

Antibacterial and Osteogenic Functionalization of Titanium With Silicon/Copper-Doped High-Energy Shot Peening-Assisted Micro-Arc Oxidation Technique

“…Recent studies have confirmed that S. aureus is also a common cause of peri-implantitis ( Ulu et al, 2018 ; Karthikeyan et al, 2019 ). Moreover, S. mutans in the oral cavity is also a common bacterium in inducing peri-implantitis, and can significantly increase the pathogenicity of other bacterial infections ( Geremias et al, 2017 ; Lemos et al, 2019 ). Therefore, we have selected both S. aureus and S. aureus to be used for antibacterial studies of our target materials in this study.…”

Implantoplasty- provoking or reducing inflammation? – a systematic scoping review

“…Reason for exclusion Lozada et al [19] The clinical parameter BoP was not presented. Geremias et al [20] The follow up period was less than 6 months. Thierbach et al [27] The study did not present data for adjunctive implantoplasty separately.…”

“…Clinical studies have suggested advantageous clinical outcomes following implantoplasty [16][17][18]. Clinical case reports have demonstrated resolution of peri-implantitis following treatment by open flap debridement with adjunctive implantoplasty [19], lower levels of planktonic microbial growth following implantoplasty [20] and that implantoplasty also can be combined with bone regeneration [21].…”