Raval Neal C, Wadhwani Chandur P K, Jain Sumita, Darveau Richard P
private practice, Bellevue, WA, USA.
Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Dec;17(6):1029-35. doi: 10.1111/cid.12235. Epub 2014 Jun 6.
There is little consensus on the most appropriate cement to use when restoring a cement-retained, implant-supported restoration. One consideration should be the interaction of pathogenic oral bacteria with restorative cements.
To determine how oral bacteria associated with peri-implant disease grow in the presence of implant cements.
Five test cements with varying composition (zinc oxide-eugenol [TBO], eugenol-free zinc oxide [TBNE], zinc orthophosphate [FL], and two resin cements [PIC and ML]) were used to fabricate specimen disks. The disks were submerged in bacterial suspensions of either Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, or Porphyromonas gingivalis. Planktonic bacterial growth within the test media was measured by determining the optical density of the cultures (OD600 ). Positive controls (media and bacteria without cement disks) and negative controls (media alone) were similarly evaluated. The mean and standard deviations (SD) were calculated for planktonic growth from three separate experiments. ANOVA statistical analysis with post hoc Tukey tests was performed where differences existed (p < .05). Selected cement disks (TBO and ML) were further examined for bacterial biofilm growth. Surface bacteria were removed and grown on agar media, and colony-forming units (CFUs) were quantified.
Planktonic growth for both A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis was significantly inhibited (p < .05) when grown in the presence of cement disks consisting of TBNE, PIC, FL, and TBO. In contrast, neither of these bacteria displayed growth inhibition in the presence of ML cement disks. F. nucleatum growth was also significantly inhibited by PIC, FL. and TBO (p < .05), but not by ML and TBNE cement disks. CFU counts for the biofilm study for TBO gave minimal and, in some instances, no bacterial adherence and growth, in contrast to ML, which supported substantially greater bacterial biofilm growth.
Cements display differing abilities to inhibit both planktonic and biofilm bacterial growth. Cements with the ability to reduce planktonic or biofilm growth of the test bacteria may be advantageous in reducing peri-implant disease. Understanding the microbial growth-inhibiting characteristics of different cement types should be considered important in the selection criteria.
在修复骨水泥固位的种植体支持修复体时，对于使用哪种最合适的骨水泥，目前几乎没有共识。一个需要考虑的因素应该是致病性口腔细菌与修复性骨水泥之间的相互作用。
确定与种植体周围疾病相关的口腔细菌在种植体骨水泥存在的情况下如何生长。
使用五种成分不同的测试骨水泥（氧化锌丁香酚 [TBO]、无丁香酚氧化锌 [TBNE]、磷酸锌 [FL] 和两种树脂骨水泥 [PIC 和 ML]）制作标本盘。将这些盘片浸没在伴放线聚集杆菌、具核梭杆菌或牙龈卟啉单胞菌的细菌悬液中。通过测定培养物的光密度（OD600）来测量测试培养基内浮游细菌的生长情况。对阳性对照（含有细菌但不含骨水泥盘片的培养基）和阴性对照（仅培养基）进行类似评估。计算三个独立实验中浮游生长的平均值和标准差（SD）。在存在差异的情况下（p < 0.05），进行方差分析（ANOVA）统计分析及事后 Tukey 检验。对选定的骨水泥盘片（TBO 和 ML）进一步检查细菌生物膜的生长情况。去除表面细菌并在琼脂培养基上培养，对菌落形成单位（CFU）进行定量。
当伴放线聚集杆菌和牙龈卟啉单胞菌在由 TBNE、PIC、FL 和 TBO 组成的骨水泥盘片存在的情况下生长时，其浮游生长均受到显著抑制（p < 0.05）。相比之下，在 ML 骨水泥盘片存在的情况下，这两种细菌均未表现出生长抑制。具核梭杆菌的生长也受到 PIC、FL 和 TBO 的显著抑制（p < 0.05），但不受 ML 和 TBNE 骨水泥盘片的抑制。与 ML 相比，TBO 生物膜研究的 CFU 计数显示细菌附着和生长极少，在某些情况下甚至没有，而 ML 支持显著更多的细菌生物膜生长。
骨水泥在抑制浮游细菌和生物膜细菌生长方面表现出不同的能力。具有减少测试细菌浮游或生物膜生长能力的骨水泥在减少种植体周围疾病方面可能具有优势。在选择标准中，了解不同类型骨水泥的微生物生长抑制特性应被视为重要因素。
