The influence of implant surface roughness on decontamination by antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and chemical agents: A preliminary study in vitro.

BACKGROUND

The aim of this preliminary study was to analyze the effectiveness of three different protocols of decontamination on five commercial moderate rough implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The types of implants investigated were: Neoporos Drive CM (CM; Neodent®), Drive CM Acqua (ACQ; Neodent®), SLActive (SLA; Straumann®), Osseotite (OT; Biomet 3i®) and Nanotite (NT; Biomet 3i®). Implant surface properties (n = 2/type of implant; control groups) were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images to determine surface roughness parameters (SRP) and energy disperse X-ray spectrometry to determine the chemical composition. Implants were then inoculated with Aggregatibacter actinomycetencomitans in vitro (n = 6/type of implant;experimental groups) and the contaminated areas were determined in SEM images (500x magnifications). Decontamination of implants was performed in duplicate by three protocols: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), EDTA associated with citric acid (EDTA + CA) and 0.12 % chlorhexidine (CHX). The remaining contaminated area (rCtA) was determined in SEM images (500x magnifications). All quantitative analysis through SEM images were analyzed in ImageJ® software for two-dimensional parameters.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found in SRP among implants (control group), except for Rv (lowest valley) between SLA vs. OT (p=0.0031; Kruskal Wallis post hoc Dunn). NT implants showed highest contaminated area vs. ACQ implants (68.19 % ± 8.63 % and 57.32 % ± 5.38 %, respectively; p = 0.0016, Tukey's test). SRP after decontamination showed statistical difference for Ra (arithmetical mean deviation) for all decontamination groups when compared to control (p < 0.05; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test), only CM implants showed statistical difference when compared decontamination protocols to control with highest modification of SRP for EDTA + AC group. For decontamination analysis, for applicability of different protocols in the same type of implant, only SLA showed statistical significant difference for aPDT vs. EDTA + CA (p = 0.0114; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test) with lowest rCTA for aPDT, however for ACQ implants the aPDT showed lowest rCTA with no statistical difference (p > 0.05; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test). No statistical difference was observed between the decontamination protocols at other implant types.

CONCLUSION

It can be suggested that the chemical-physical characteristics of dental implants can be effected by the process of contamination and decontamination by aPDT and chemical agents.