Ramidan Juliana Cabral, de Mendonça E Bertolini Martinna, Júnior Mário Roberto Moraes, Portela Maristela Barbosa, Lourenço Eduardo José Veras, de Moraes Telles Daniel
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Department of Oral Health and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Periodontology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
J Oral Implantol. 2022 Dec 1;48(6):573-577. doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00191.
The choice of the material used to fill screw access channels in implant-supported prostheses depends, in most cases, on operator's preference, without considering the susceptibility of biofilm colonization. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine and compare the total amount of biofilm formed on different materials used to fill screw access channels in implant abutments. For this propose, titanium implant analogs were attached on abutments and divided into 5 groups: positive control (no filling material); negative control (closed with resin); and filled with cotton, gutta-percha, or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The analogs with attached abutments were then immersed in a brain heart infusion medium containing Candida albicans (strain 10231 from American Type Culture Collection [ATCC]) and incubated aerobically at 37°C with gentle agitation. After 15 days, materials were removed, and total viable biofilm on each material was quantified by methyl tetrazolium reduction assay at 490 nm. All experiments were performed in triplicate. Data were processed by IBM SPSS Statistic software using 1-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post hoc tests to analyze differences between groups, with an overall significance level of P < .001. A significant difference was observed between cotton and gutta-percha (P < .017) and between cotton and PTFE (P < .025). However, there was no statistical difference between gutta-percha and PTFE (P > .050). Thus, this in vitro experiment showed that gutta-percha and PTFE presented lower biofilm formation compared with cotton when used to fill screw access channels. These results can provide a basis for future clinical studies that can be a guide to decreasing the occurrence of gaps and bacterial growth inside the implant/abutment attachment site. In addition, controlled in vivo studies are necessary to confirm the clinical viability of findings of this study.
在种植体支持的修复体中,用于填充螺丝通道的材料选择在大多数情况下取决于操作者的偏好,而未考虑生物膜定植的易感性。因此,本研究的目的是确定并比较用于填充种植体基台螺丝通道的不同材料上形成的生物膜总量。为此,将钛种植体模拟物附着在基台上并分为5组:阳性对照(不填充材料);阴性对照(用树脂封闭);以及填充棉、牙胶或聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)。然后将附着有基台的模拟物浸入含有白色念珠菌(美国典型培养物保藏中心[ATCC]的10231菌株)的脑心浸液培养基中,并在37℃下进行有氧培养,同时轻轻搅拌。15天后,取出材料,通过在490nm处的甲基四氮唑还原试验对每种材料上的总活菌生物膜进行定量。所有实验均重复进行三次。数据使用IBM SPSS统计软件进行处理,采用单因素方差分析和Bonferroni事后检验来分析组间差异,总体显著性水平为P < .001。观察到棉与牙胶之间(P < .017)以及棉与聚四氟乙烯之间(P < .025)存在显著差异。然而,牙胶与聚四氟乙烯之间没有统计学差异(P > .050)。因此,这项体外实验表明,当用于填充螺丝通道时,牙胶和聚四氟乙烯与棉相比生物膜形成较少。这些结果可为未来的临床研究提供依据,这些研究可作为减少种植体/基台附着部位间隙和细菌生长发生率的指南。此外,有必要进行对照的体内研究以证实本研究结果的临床可行性。