In vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations

Keim, David R.; Nickles, Katrin; Dannewitz, Bettina; Ratka, Christoph; Eickholz, Peter; Petsos, Hari

doi:10.1111/clr.13441

Cited by 49 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While it may be argued that alternative treatment strategies such as air powder abrasion [15] may have been more appropriate as control, it has to be kept in mind that simple, flat surfaces were considered here, which could be well accessed. This is in contrast to clinical reality, where access for removing biofilm due to surface roughness and the macrodesign of implants [25,27] as well as defect morphology [26] is critical. The double diamond electrodes were kept at a distance of 1 mm to the disc surfaces and despite that, they were at least as effective in biofilm removal as the use of curettes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…The major challenges in peri-implantitis therapy include the risk of changes in implant surface topography [25] due to instrumentation as well as limited access depending on the morphology of the peri-implant defect [26]. Two recent studies pointed out that the complete removal of biofilms from implant surfaces is not feasible due to the macrodesign of the implants [25,27].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pilot Study on the Use of a Laser-Structured Double Diamond Electrode (DDE) for Biofilm Removal from Dental Implant Surfaces

Koch

Burkovski

Zulla

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

No proper treatment option for peri-implantitis exists yet. Based on previous studies showing the in vitro effectiveness of electrochemical disinfection using boron-doped diamond electrodes, novel double diamond electrodes (DDE) were tested here. Using a ceramic carrier and a laser structuring process, a clinically applicable electrode array was manufactured. Roughened metal discs (n = 24) made from Ti-Zr alloy were exposed to the oral cavities of six volunteers for 24 h in order to generate biofilm. Then, biofilm removal was carried out either using plastic curettes and chlorhexidine digluconate or electrochemical disinfection. In addition, dental implants were contaminated with ex vivo multispecies biofilm and disinfected using DDE treatment. Bacterial growth and the formation of biofilm polymer were determined as outcome measures. Chemo-mechanical treatment could not eliminate bacteria from roughened surfaces, while in most cases, a massive reduction of bacteria and biofilm polymer was observed following DDE treatment. Electrochemical disinfection was charge- and time-dependent and could also not reach complete disinfection in all instances. Implant threads had no negative effect on DDE treatment. Bacteria exhibit varying resistance to electrochemical disinfection with Bacillus subtilis, Neisseria sp., Rothiamucilaginosa, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, and Streptococcus mitis surviving 5 min of DDE application at 6 V. Electrochemical disinfection is promising but requires further optimization with respect to charge quantity and application time in order to achieve disinfection without harming host tissue.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pilot Study on the Use of a Laser-Structured Double Diamond Electrode (DDE) for Biofilm Removal from Dental Implant Surfaces

Koch

Burkovski

Zulla

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, in all cases, unreached areas were visible (Keim et al, 2019). In the same study, air abrasion showed no surface damage, while sonic scaler and curette damaged the implant surface (Keim et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Mechanical debridement using stainless steel instruments on implant surface causes modifications of the implant surface (Keim et al, 2019;Louropoulou, Slot, & Van der Weijden, 2012), and releases titanium (Ti) particles into the surrounding tissue (Suárez-López Del Amo, Garaicoa-Pazmiño, Fretwurst, Castilho, & Squarize, 2018), which might cause further complications (Eger, Sterer, Liron, Kohavi, & Gabet, 2017, Fretwurst, Nelson, Tarnow, Wang, & Giannobile, 2018. This requires the use of instruments to reduce implant damage while maximizing the cleaning effect (de Tapia et al, 2019;Mann, Parmar, Walmsley, & Lea, 2012;Viganò et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using mechanic, antiseptic and anti‐inflammatory treatment: 1 year follow‐up

Mayer

Ginesin

Horwitz

2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The study's aim was to assess the clinical outcome 6 and 12 months after a nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis per se or in conjunction with a combination of local antiseptic and anti‐inflammatory treatment. Materials and methods Included were 69 patients with periodontitis, with 106 implants, diagnosed with peri‐implantitis. Peri‐implantitis was defined as radiographic bone loss ≥3 mm, probing depth (PD) ≥ 6 mm, with bleeding on probing. Group M peri‐implantitis was treated with ultrasonic debridement and soft tissue curettage. Group P had additional implant surface treatment with rotatory hand piece composed of chitosan bristle, soft tissue curettage combined with application of 0.95% hypochlorite and 1 mg minocycline HCl. Results After 6 months, both groups demonstrated significant reduction of mean plaque index, PD, and clinical attachment level (0.71 ± 0.57, 0.81 ± 0.55; 4.77 ± 0.73 mm, 4.42 ± 0.5 mm; 5.03 ± 0.86 mm, 5.13 ± 0.73 mm; respectively) and bleeding on probing. After 6 and 12 months, group P showed significantly better PD results compared to group M. The bleeding was significantly less in group P after 12 months (15.3% ± 6.2, 25.1% ± 8.2, respectively). Conclusions Adjunctive treatment with local antiseptic and anti‐inflammatories during mechanical phase was positively associated with inflammation reduction and connective tissue reattachment.

show abstract

“…Another critical difference in this study was the evaluation of dental plaque on implant surfaces collected in the mouth of participants rather than a single bacterial species [14,20] or artificial biofilms [21,22]. Dental plaque comprises 700-1000 bacterial species and is significantly different to a single bacterial colony or artificial biofilms.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the effect of several representative decontamination methods of oral biofilms on different implant surfaces. Material and methods: Eleven participants wore a hard resin splint carrying 6 rough (GC Aadva® implant; 3.3-mm diameter, 8-mm length) or machined (not commercially available) surface implants for 4 days to accumulate dental plaque naturally on the titanium surfaces of the implants. Apart from surface roughness, the morphology of all implants was identical. After detaching the implants from the splints, the ability of the following decontamination methodsgauze soaked in saline (G), ultrasonic scaler (US), air abrasive (Air), rotary stainless steel instrument (Rot), and Er:YAG laser (Las)-to cleanse the contaminated implant surface for 1 min extra-orally was tested. The control (Cont) group did not receive any decontamination. Scanning electron microscopic (SEM) investigation of one participant's samples was employed to examine the post-instrumented implant surface for qualitative analysis, and bacterial culture of the remaining 10 participants' samples was performed to count the number of colony-forming units (CFU) for quantitative analysis. The experimental sequence was initially performed for the rough surface implants and then similarly repeated for the machined surface implants. Bacterial CFU counts among the six groups were analyzed using the Steel-Dwass test, and differences between rough and machined surface implants were determined using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: G and Rot eliminated most biofilms on machined surface implants according to SEM analysis. G, Air, and Rot removed significantly more of the biofilms on rough and machined surface implants compared with US according to CFU counts. Moreover, G significantly reduced more biofilms than Las on machined surface implants. The analysis between rough and machined surface implants showed that Cont, G, and US were better able to cleanse biofilms on machined surface implants compared with rough surface implants.

show abstract

In vitro efficacy of three different implant surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations

Cited by 49 publications

References 22 publications

Pilot Study on the Use of a Laser-Structured Double Diamond Electrode (DDE) for Biofilm Removal from Dental Implant Surfaces

Pilot Study on the Use of a Laser-Structured Double Diamond Electrode (DDE) for Biofilm Removal from Dental Implant Surfaces

A nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using mechanic, antiseptic and anti‐inflammatory treatment: 1 year follow‐up

Evaluation of decontamination methods of oral biofilms formed on screw-shaped, rough and machined surface implants: an ex vivo study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About