Cucchi Alessandro, Molè Federica, Rinaldi Lucia, Marchetti Claudio, Corinaldesi Giuseppe
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018 Mar/Apr;33(2):395-404. doi: 10.11607/jomi.5880.
The primary prevention of peri-implantitis onset is a key factor in long-term implant success, and the evaluation of the antibacterial efficacy of different implant surfaces is fundamental in this way. The aim of this study was to assess if implants with collars coated with anatase were less subjected to bacterial colonization than implants with noncoated collars, and to investigate how implant bacterial colonization varies over time.
Eighteen patients in need of implant-supported rehabilitation were selected to have two adjacent implants placed, one with an anatase-coated collar and one with the collar uncoated. Biofilm samples were collected at four sites around each implant at four different time points. Samples were analyzed through polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to detect and calculate the colonization rate of Aggregactibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Tannerella forsythia, and Prevotella intermedia.
Due to one patient dropout and two nonosseointegrated implants, 32 out of 36 placed implants were followed up for 12 months, and 128 samples for each time point were collected: in total, 512 biofilm samples were analyzed. The type and rate of bacterial colonization were not significantly different between the two groups at all the intervals. However, the anatase-coated collar showed no proliferation of T forsythia. A significant difference in marginal bone level could be observed at the 12-month follow-up only. No significant difference in the other clinical and radiographic indexes was observed.
In this study, anatase-coated collar implants did not seem to provide significantly different microbiologic outcomes than uncoated collar implants. However, the absence of colonization of the species T forsythia and the slightly smaller peri-implant bone loss at the 12-month follow-up suggest that further investigations on anatase coating are needed. Nevertheless, data on bacterial colonization and crestal bone levels need further investigations to draw meaningful conclusions, due to the statistical power of this pilot study.
种植体周围炎发病的一级预防是种植体长期成功的关键因素，从这个角度来看，评估不同种植体表面的抗菌效果至关重要。本研究的目的是评估带有锐钛矿涂层颈部的种植体是否比无涂层颈部的种植体更少受到细菌定植，并研究种植体细菌定植随时间如何变化。
选择18名需要种植体支持修复的患者，植入两个相邻的种植体，一个种植体颈部涂有锐钛矿，另一个种植体颈部未涂层。在四个不同时间点，从每个种植体周围的四个部位采集生物膜样本。通过聚合酶链反应（PCR）分析样本，以检测和计算伴放线聚集杆菌、牙龈卟啉单胞菌、具核梭杆菌、福赛坦氏菌和中间普氏菌的定植率。
由于一名患者退出和两个种植体未骨结合，36枚植入的种植体中有32枚随访12个月，每个时间点采集128个样本：总共分析了512个生物膜样本。在所有时间间隔内，两组之间的细菌定植类型和率均无显著差异。然而，涂有锐钛矿的颈部未观察到福赛坦氏菌的增殖。仅在12个月随访时观察到边缘骨水平有显著差异。其他临床和影像学指标未观察到显著差异。
在本研究中，涂有锐钛矿颈部的种植体与未涂层颈部的种植体相比，微生物学结果似乎没有显著差异。然而，福赛坦氏菌未定植以及在12个月随访时种植体周围骨丢失略少表明需要对锐钛矿涂层进行进一步研究。尽管如此，由于本初步研究的统计效力，关于细菌定植和嵴顶骨水平的数据需要进一步研究才能得出有意义的结论。
Zotero 插件