Implant Surface Decontamination by Surgical Treatment of Periimplantitis

Koo, Ki‐Tae; Khoury, Fouad; Keeve, Philip L.; Schwarz, Frank; Ramanauskaitė, Aušra; Sculean, Anton; Romanos, Georgios E.

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000840

Cited by 55 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous treatment approaches have been reported in the literature trying to achieve effective decontamination for dental implants [3,4,5,6,7]. Mechanical methods using ultrasonic scalers or Ti brushes, as well as chemical procedures using hydrogen peroxide or chlorhexidine have been reported [8,9,10].…”

Section: Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Laser Applications on Dental Implant Surfaces Contaminated with Acinetobacter Baumannii and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of peri-implantitis through several implant surface decontamination techniques have been reported, however, some of them can negatively alter the implant surface or enhance more bacterial resistance. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate implant surface decontamination by means of Er,Cr:YSGG and diode lasers. Fifty micro-textured (MTX) dental implants were contaminated with Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 25) and with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 25). All implants were then divided into five groups for the decontamination procedure. In group I (GI), decontamination was done with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (2780 nm), while in group II (GII) decontamination was performed using photodynamic therapy (a 650 nm diode laser). In Group III (GIII) decontamination was performed with photodynamic therapy (an 808 nm diode laser), and in group IV (GIV) decontamination was performed with 0.12% chlorhexidine. Group V (GV) was the control group with no decontamination. After decontamination, colony forming units (CFU) were counted and implants were prepared for SEM analysis. A significant difference (p < 0.001) was observed for GI compared to the other groups, and also for GIV compared to both GII and GIII. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser (GI) showed the best results in decontaminating the implant surface. Chlorhexidine (GIV), proved to be better in decontaminating the implant surface than photodynamic therapy GII and diode laser GIII. No significant difference was found between group GII and GIII. The SEM analysis showed no significant change in the implant surface topography. The results of this study suggest that the Er,Cr:YSGG laser can be considered as an effective technique for reducing bacteria contamination on implant surfaces.

show abstract

Section: Literature Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Laser Applications on Dental Implant Surfaces Contaminated with Acinetobacter Baumannii and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These questions in particular address radiological and clinical outcomes, and determine predictable therapeutic options for the clinical surgical management of peri‐implantitis lesions. These topics include surgical non‐augmentative treatment, surgical augmentative treatment, effective decontamination of the implant surface, and the correction of peri‐implant soft tissue. The answers to the questions are based on the four position papers presented at the FDI World Dental Federation consensus meeting on peri‐implantitis in May 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third paper addresses the decontamination of the implant surface during the surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis. Mechanical, chemical or photodynamic measures along with laser therapy have attempted to eliminate infection, resolve inflammation, and render the surface conducive to bone regeneration and possible re‐osseointegration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mechanical, chemical or photodynamic measures along with laser therapy have attempted to eliminate infection, resolve inflammation, and render the surface conducive to bone regeneration and possible re‐osseointegration. All materials and tools used for surface decontamination such as CHX, citric or phosphoric acid, all kinds of laser, in the case of non‐submerged surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis failed to show any clinical difference in comparison to saline control over the long term regardless of the implant surface. This is due to direct recontamination by the oral flora.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis – Consensus report of working group 4

Khoury

Keeve²,

Ramanauskaitė

et al. 2019

International Dental Journal

Self Cite

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following consensus report is based on four background reviews (Keeve et al., Implant Dent 2019 28(2): 177–186; Ramanauskaite et al., Implant Dent 2019 28(2): 187–209; Koo et al., Implant Dent 2019 28(2): 173–176; Sculean et al., Implant Dent 2019 210–216). The surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis is indicated in the cases where the first choice of treatment, the non‐surgical one, failed with recurrence of bleeding and suppuration. The aim of this review was to systematically screen the literature for possible surface decontamination techniques and material during surgical treatment, the surgical regenerative and non‐regenerative treatments of peri‐implantitis, radiological and clinical outcomes, the importance of the presence of fixed and or keratinised peri‐implant gingiva, and to determine predictable therapeutic options for the clinical surgical management of peri‐implantitis lesions. Existent clinical, radiographic and microbiological data do not favour any decontamination approaches and fail to show the influence of a particular decontamination protocol on surgical therapy. Using implantoplasty in surgical non‐regenerative treatment leads to a significant decrease in bleeding on probing and probing depth, and may result in improvement of clinical and radiographic parameters, up to 3 years after surgery compared with mechanical debridement alone. Surgical augmentative peri‐implantitis therapy resulted in improved clinical and radiographic treatment outcomes compared with the baseline in the majority of studies with 6 months to 7–10 years of follow‐up. There is no evidence to support the superiority of a specific material, product or membrane in terms of long‐term clinical benefits. The best treatment modality to improve the width of keratinised attached mucosa and bleeding and plaque scores, and to sustain the peri‐implant marginal bone level, is the use of an apically positioned flap combined with a free gingival graft.

show abstract

“…Currently, no method for the treatment of implants affected by peri-implantitis has been standardized. The basic principle of treatment is based on either removal of or trying to save failing implants depending on the area of affected surface [10,11]. The difference of re-osseointegration potential between contaminated and new implants was described by Levin et al [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repeated Exposure of Nanostructured Titanium to Osteoblasts with Respect to Peri-Implantitis

Babuška

Dobrá

Dluhoš³

et al. 2020

Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium offers excellent biocompatibility and extraordinary mechanical properties. As a result, it is used as a material for dental implants. Implants infected by peri-implantitis can be cleaned for successful re-osseointegration. Optimal surface properties, such as roughness and wettability, have a significant impact on cell adhesion. The aim of this study was to evaluate the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblasts on the surface of repeatedly cleaned nanostructured titanium samples. Human osteoblast-like cells MG-63 were seeded on nanostructured titanium specimens manufactured from rods produced by the equal channel angular pressing. For surface characterization, roughness and wettability were measured. Cell adhesion after 2 h as well as cell proliferation after 48 h from plating was assessed. We have found that this repeated cleaning of titanium surface reduced cell adhesion as well as proliferation. These events depend on interplay of surface properties, such as wettability, roughness and topography. It is difficult to distinguish which factors are responsible for these events and further investigations will be required. However, even after the several rounds of repeated cleaning, there was a certain rate of adhesion and proliferation recorded. Therefore the attempts to save failing implants by using in situ cleaning are promising.

show abstract

Implant Surface Decontamination by Surgical Treatment of Periimplantitis

Cited by 55 publications

References 28 publications

The Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Laser Applications on Dental Implant Surfaces Contaminated with Acinetobacter Baumannii and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

The Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG and Diode Laser Applications on Dental Implant Surfaces Contaminated with Acinetobacter Baumannii and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis – Consensus report of working group 4

Repeated Exposure of Nanostructured Titanium to Osteoblasts with Respect to Peri-Implantitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About