Tonin Marcelo H, Brites Fabiano C, Mariano José R, Freitas Karina M S, Ortiz Mariana A L, Salmeron Samira
Department of Implantology, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil.
Department of Implantology, Unieuro University Center, Brasília, Brazil.
Eur J Dent. 2022 Feb;16(1):161-166. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1731926. Epub 2021 Oct 1.
Currently, dental implants are a predictable treatment option for oral rehabilitation; however, complications such as peri-implant diseases are increasing every day. Thus, the aim of this study was to verify the efficacy, , of two protocols against cultures of periodontal biofilm and .
Petri dishes for each of the following groups were used: control groups (C)-plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (C.B; = 4) or (C.SA; = 4) without any treatment; laser groups-plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (low-level laser therapy [LLLT].B; = 4) or (LLLT.SA; = 4) and treated with LLLT (660 nm, 30 mW, 50 J/cm, and 47 seconds); antimicrobial photodynamic therapy groups (aPDT)-plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (aPDT.B; = 4) or (aPDT.SA; = 4) and treated with aPDT (red laser 660 nm, 30 mW, 50 J/cm, 47 seconds + toluidine blue O (TBO) 100 µg/mL, and 1 minute). After treatments were performed, the contents of all plates were diluted and seeded for counting colony-forming units (CFUs).
Results were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's test, comparison of percentages, and independent -tests with a 5% significance level.
Both treatments, LLLT and aPDT, significantly reduced the number of CFUs for the two types of culture, LLLT.B (3.69 × 10 ± 0.20), aPDT.B (2.79 × 10 ± 0.13), LLLT.SA (4.10 × 10 ± 0.12), and aPDT.SA (3.23 × 10 ± 0.10) when compared with control groups C.B (5.18 × 10 ± 0.43) and C.SA (5.81 × 10 ± 0.16; = 0.000). When treatment groups were compared separately, there was also a statistically significant difference ( = 0.000). None of the protocols were able to eliminate cultured microorganisms.
The LLLT and aPDT protocols effectively reduced cultures of periodontal biofilm and , with the superiority of aPDT.
目前，牙种植体是口腔修复的一种可预测的治疗选择；然而，诸如种植体周围疾病等并发症日益增多。因此，本研究的目的是验证两种方案对牙周生物膜培养物和……的疗效。
使用培养皿用于以下各组：对照组（C）——接种牙周生物膜（C.B；n = 4）或……（C.SA；n = 4）且未进行任何处理的培养皿；激光组——接种牙周生物膜（低强度激光治疗[LLLT].B；n = 4）或……（LLLT.SA；n = 4）并接受LLLT治疗（660 nm，30 mW，50 J/cm²，47秒）的培养皿；抗菌光动力疗法组（aPDT）——接种牙周生物膜（aPDT.B；n = 4）或……（aPDT.SA；n = 4）并接受aPDT治疗（660 nm红色激光，30 mW，50 J/cm²，47秒 + 100 μg/mL甲苯胺蓝O（TBO），1分钟）的培养皿。处理完成后，将所有培养皿中的内容物稀释并接种以计数菌落形成单位（CFU）。
结果采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey检验、百分比比较以及显著性水平为5%的独立……检验进行分析。
与对照组C.B（5.18×10……±0.43）和C.SA（5.81×10……±0.16；p = 0.000）相比，LLLT和aPDT这两种处理均显著降低了两种培养类型的CFU数量，LLLT.B（3.69×10……±0.20）、aPDT.B（2.79×10……±0.13）、LLLT.SA（4.10×10……±0.12）和aPDT.SA（3.23×10……±0.10）。当分别比较各治疗组时，也存在统计学显著差异（p = 0.000）。没有任何一种方案能够消除培养的微生物。
LLLT和aPDT方案有效减少了牙周生物膜培养物和……，aPDT具有优势。
