Department of Oral Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
Department of Microbiology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland.
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2020 Feb;29(2):177-182. doi: 10.17219/acem/112606.
The main goal of the treatment of the peri-implantitis is to decontaminate the surface of the implant, thereby enabling further treatment involving, e.g., guided bone regeneration. Since new implants of the rougher surface were introduced to the common dental practice, decontamination is even more difficult.
The aim of the study was to evaluate 3 different methods of decontaminating implants with 3 different surfaces.
A total of 30 dental implants with 3 different surface types (machined, sandblasted, and acid-etched (SLA) and hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated) were used in the study. Each group of implants was coated with Escherichia coli biofilm and cultivated. Afterwards, the implants were transferred to the jaw model and treated with a different method: sonic scaler mechanical debridement with a Woodpecker PT5 sonic scaler (1st group), and mechanical debridement with sonic scaler and with the combination with chemical agent Perisolv® (2nd group), and with Er:YAG laser treatment (3rd group). Each implant was treated with the specific method and sent for further microbiological evaluation.
The highest level of decontamination was achieved for machined-surface implants and the lowest for HA-coated implants. The method with the highest biofilm reduction was the scaler and Perisolv® group. The highest level of decontamination of HA-coated implants were achieved for Er:YAG laser irradiation method.
In the following paper, the superiority of combined chemical-mechanical method of decontaminating the surface of the implant on SLA and machined-surface implants was proved. On the contrary, Er:YAG laser irradiation was reported as the best option for decontamination of the HA-coated implants. In our opinion, it is a significant finding, revealing that the method of peri-implantitis management should be considered in accordance to the type of the surface of the implant (customized to the surface of the implant).
种植体周围炎治疗的主要目标是对种植体表面进行去污,从而能够进行进一步的治疗,例如引导骨再生。由于更粗糙表面的新型种植体被引入到常规牙科实践中,去污变得更加困难。
本研究的目的是评估 3 种不同表面的种植体的 3 种不同去污方法。
本研究共使用了 30 颗具有 3 种不同表面类型(机械加工、喷砂酸蚀(SLA)和羟基磷灰石(HA)涂层)的牙科种植体。每组种植体均涂有大肠杆菌生物膜并进行培养。之后,将种植体转移到下颌模型中,并采用不同的方法进行处理:Woodpecker PT5 超声洁牙器(1 组)的超声洁牙器机械去污,超声洁牙器和 Perisolv®化学剂联合机械去污(2 组),以及 Er:YAG 激光治疗(3 组)。每种方法均对特定种植体进行处理,然后进行进一步的微生物评估。
机械表面种植体的去污效果最好,HA 涂层种植体的去污效果最差。具有最高生物膜减少率的方法是洁牙器和 Perisolv®组。对于 HA 涂层种植体,Er:YAG 激光照射方法的去污效果最好。
在随后的论文中,证明了 SLA 和机械表面种植体表面的化学-机械联合去污方法具有优越性。相反,Er:YAG 激光辐照被报道为去除 HA 涂层种植体的最佳选择。在我们看来,这是一个重要的发现,表明应根据种植体表面的类型考虑种植体周围炎管理方法(针对种植体表面进行定制)。