In situ dental implant installation after decontamination in a previously peri-implant diseased site: a pilot study

Abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases.MethodsA peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H2O2. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically.ResultsThe untreated implants and H2O2-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site.ConclusionsIt can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.

Development of a new preclinical model to study early implant loss: a validation study in the beagle dog

“…Authors concluded with limitations that osseointegration could be achieved around infected sites and contaminated implants [ 35 ]. Similar results were obtained by Kim et al in a similar model inducing the infection leaving exposed the 4-mm upper part of implants for later placing the infected implants in a corrected position in the same or in pristine bone [ 36 ]. This study was based in a previous study of Kolonidis et al who found osseointegration of infected implants placed in pristine bone [ 37 ].…”

Reosseointegration Following Regenerative Therapy of Tissue‐Engineered Bone in a Canine Model of Experimental Peri‐Implantitis

“…Three‐month later, 24 standard clinical‐used fixtures of 10 mm height (3.8 mm diameter) with commercially pure titanium surface (Huachen, Xi'an, China) were placed by one experienced operator according to the protocols recommended by the manufacturer. The flaps were sutured with single interrupted sutures to submerge all implants and removed 10 d later …”

“…The flaps were sutured with single interrupted sutures to submerge all implants and removed 10 d later. 34 Two months after dental implant installation, healing abutments were installed. After 1 months of soft tissue healing, cotton floss ligatures were placed around the implant neck.…”