Jordan Ante, Smojver Igor, Budimir Ana, Gabrić Dragana, Vuletić Marko
Department of Oral Surgery, Dental Polyclinic Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
St. Catherine Specialty Hospital, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia.
Bioengineering (Basel). 2024 Mar 28;11(4):326. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering11040326.
Polymicrobial biofilm removal and decontamination of the implant surface is the most important goal in the treatment of periimplantitis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of four different decontamination methods for removing and biofilms in vitro. Seventy-five dental implants were contaminated with a bacterial suspension and randomly divided into five groups ( = 15): the negative control group, which received no treatment; the positive control group, treated with 0.2% chlorhexidine; group 1, treated with a chitosan brush (Labrida BioCleanTM, Labrida AS, Oslo, Norway); group 2, treated with a chitosan brush and 0.2% chlorhexidine; and group 3, treated with a device based on the electrolytic cleaning method (GalvoSurge, GalvoSurge Dental AG, Widnau, Switzerland). The colony-forming unit (CFU) count was used to assess the number of viable bacteria in each sample, and statistical analyses were performed. When compared to the negative control group, all the decontamination methods reduced the CFU count. The electrolytic cleaning method decontaminated the implant surface more effectively than the other three procedures, while the chitosan brush was the least effective. Further research in more realistic settings is required to assess the efficacy of the decontamination procedures described in this study.
去除种植体周围炎治疗中种植体表面的多微生物生物膜并进行去污是最重要的目标。本研究的目的是评估四种不同去污方法在体外去除生物膜的效果。75颗牙种植体被细菌悬液污染，并随机分为五组（每组 = 15）：阴性对照组，不进行处理；阳性对照组，用0.2%氯己定处理；第1组，用壳聚糖刷（Labrida BioCleanTM，Labrida AS，挪威奥斯陆）处理；第2组，用壳聚糖刷和0.2%氯己定处理；第3组，用基于电解清洁方法的设备（GalvoSurge，GalvoSurge Dental AG，瑞士维德瑙）处理。采用菌落形成单位（CFU）计数来评估每个样本中活菌的数量，并进行统计分析。与阴性对照组相比，所有去污方法均降低了CFU计数。电解清洁方法比其他三种方法更有效地对种植体表面进行了去污，而壳聚糖刷的效果最差。需要在更实际的环境中进行进一步研究，以评估本研究中所述去污程序的效果。
