Barrak Ibrahim, Baráth Zoltán, Tián Tamás, Venkei Annamária, Gajdács Márió, Urbán Edit, Stájer Anette
1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Szeged, Kálvária sugárút 57., 6720,Szeged, Hungary.
2Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Szeged, Tisza Lajos körút 64-66.,Szeged, Hungary.
Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung. 2020 Aug 25. doi: 10.1556/030.2020.01176.
Implants have been considered the treatment of choice to replace missing teeth, unfortunately, peri-implant disease is still an unresolved issue. Contaminated implants may be decontaminated by physical debridement and chemical disinfectants; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding the ideal techniques/agents to be used for the decontamination. The objective of our study was to compare the decontaminating efficacy of different chemical agents on a titanium surface contaminated with Porphyromonas gingivalis, a typical representative of the bacterial flora associated with peri-implantitis. Commercially pure Ti grade 4 discs with a polished surface were treated with a mouthwash containing chlorhexidine digluconate (0.1%), povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) solution (10%) or citric acid monohydrate (40%). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cellular growth and survival were assessed by a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Significant differences in the quantity of P. gingivalis could be observed after 6 days of incubation. A numerical, but not statistically significant (P = 0.066) decrease in the amount of living bacteria was observed in the group treated with the PVP-iodine solution as compared to the control group. The chlorhexidine (CHX)-treated group presented with significantly higher cell counts, as compared to the PVP-iodine-treated group (P = 0.032), while this was not observed compared to the control group and citric acid-treated group. Our results have also been verified by SEM measurements. Our results suggest that for P. gingivalis contamination on a titanium surface in vitro, PVP-iodine is a superior decontaminant, compared to citric acid and chlorhexidine-digulconate solution.
种植体一直被视为缺失牙修复的首选治疗方法,不幸的是,种植体周围疾病仍然是一个未解决的问题。受污染的种植体可以通过物理清创和化学消毒剂进行消毒;然而,对于用于消毒的理想技术/试剂,目前尚未达成共识。我们研究的目的是比较不同化学试剂对被牙龈卟啉单胞菌污染的钛表面的消毒效果,牙龈卟啉单胞菌是与种植体周围炎相关的典型细菌菌群代表。对具有抛光表面的商业纯4级钛盘用含有葡萄糖酸洗必泰(0.1%)、聚维酮碘(PVP-碘)溶液(10%)或一水柠檬酸(40%)的漱口水进行处理。通过3-(4,5-二甲基噻唑-2-基)-2,5-二苯基四氮唑溴盐(MTT)测定法和扫描电子显微镜(SEM)对细胞生长和存活进行定性和定量评估。孵育6天后,可以观察到牙龈卟啉单胞菌数量的显著差异。与对照组相比,用PVP-碘溶液处理的组中活菌数量有数值上的减少,但无统计学意义(P = 0.066)。与PVP-碘处理组相比,洗必泰(CHX)处理组的细胞计数显著更高(P = 0.032),而与对照组和柠檬酸处理组相比未观察到这种情况。我们的结果也通过SEM测量得到了验证。我们的结果表明,对于体外钛表面的牙龈卟啉单胞菌污染,与柠檬酸和葡萄糖酸洗必泰溶液相比,PVP-碘是一种更优的消毒剂。