Use of checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization to evaluate the internal contamination of dental implants and comparison of bacterial leakage with cast or pre‐machined abutments

Nascimento, Cássio do; Barbosa, Rodrigo Edson Santos; Issa, João Paulo Mardegan; Watanabe, Evandro; Ito, Izabel Yoko; Albuquerque, Rubens Ferreira de

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01663.x

Cited by 39 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface has been also discussed in the literature (do Nascimento et al 2008;do Nascimento et al 2009;Gross et al 1999;Callan et al 2005).…”

Section: Bacteria In the Implant-abutment Interfacementioning

confidence: 97%

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Belibasakis

Charalampakis

Bostancı

et al. 2014

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biofilms are complex microbial communities that grow on various surfaces in nature. The oral micobiota tend to form polymicrobial biofilms, particularly on the hard mineralized surfaces of teeth, which may impact on oral health and disease. They can cause inflammation of the adjacent tooth-supporting (periodontal) tissues, leading to destructive periodontal disease and tooth loss. The emergence of osseointegrated dental implants as a restorative treatment option for replacing missing teeth has also brought along new artificial surfaces within the oral cavity, on which oral bacteria can form biofilms. As in the case of natural teeth, biofilms on implant surfaces may also trigger infection and cause inflammatory destruction of the peri-implant tissue (i.e. peri-implantitis). While there are strong similarities in the composition of the mixed microbial flora between periodontal and peri-implant infections, there are also a few distinctive differences. The immunological events underlying the pathogenesis of peri-implant infections are qualitatively similar, yet more extensive, compared to periodontal infections, resulting in a faster progression of tissue destruction. This chapter summarizes the current knowledge on the microbiology and immunology of peri-implant infections, including findings from the peri-implant crevicular fluid, the inflammatory exudate of the peri-implant tissue. Moreover, it discusses the diagnosis and current approaches for the treatment of oral infections.

show abstract

“…A bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface has been also discussed in the literature (do Nascimento et al 2008;do Nascimento et al 2009;Gross et al 1999;Callan et al 2005).…”

Section: Bacteria In the Implant-abutment Interfacementioning

confidence: 97%

Peri-Implant Infections of Oral Biofilm Etiology

Belibasakis

Charalampakis

Bostancı

et al. 2014

Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bacterial infiltration has been evaluated in a two-way path, not only from inside the screw role to the outside (I/E) 3,4,8,12-14,16,19,30 , but also inward from the outer part of the implant (E/I) 4,9,10,12,20,23,26 . The results have been evaluated through qualitative methods of turbidity of nutrient broths 4,12,14,16,19,23,24,30 and quantitative methods of analyzing bacterial DNA 3,10,21 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-leakage at the implant-abutment interface with different tightening torques in vitro

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThis study evaluated the microleakage at the implant/abutment interface of external hexagon (EH) implants and abutments with different amounts of bacteria and tightening torques. Material and MethodsA bacterial suspension was prepared to inoculate the implants. The first phase of this study used nine EH implants and abutments that were divided into three groups with different amounts of bacterial suspension (n=3): V0.5: 0.5 µL; V1.0: 1.0 µL e V1.5: 1.5 µL, and tightened to the manufacturer's recommended torque. The second phase of this experiment used 27 assemblies that were similar to those used in the first phase. These samples were inoculated with 0.5 µL of bacterial suspension and divided into three groups (n=9). T10: 10 Ncm; T20: 20 Ncm and T32: 32 Ncm. The samples were evaluated according to the turbidity of the broth every 24 hours for 14 days, and the bacteria viability was tested after that period. The statistical evaluation was conducted by Kruskal-Wallis testing (p<.05). ResultsDuring the first phase, groups V1.0 and V1.5 was presented with bacterial contamination in all samples after 24 h. During the second phase, two samples from group T10 and one from T20 presented positive results for bacterial contamination. Different amounts of bacterial solution led to overflow and contamination during the first 24 h of the experiment. The tightening torques did not statistically affect the microleakage in the assemblies. However, the group that was tightened to 32 Ncm torque did not show any bacterial contamination. ConclusionAfter 14 days of experimentation, the bacteria were proven to remain viable inside the implant internal cavity.

show abstract

“…Amongst these techniques, the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridisation (CDDH) is a method largely used in dentistry, including Periodontics, 10 Endodontics, 11 Implantology, 12 Paediatric dentistry, 13 Cariology, 14 and Orthodontics. 1 Although the oral hygiene methods in orthodontic patients should be emphasised, 2,8 the manual skills of children, youngsters and elderly can be compromised sometimes and affect the mechanical dental biofilm control in these individuals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%