Comparison of decontamination efficacy of two electrolyte cleaning methods to diode laser, plasma, and air-abrasive devices

Evaluation of Different Procedures for Titanium Dental Implant Surface Decontamination-In Vitro Study

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 Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro. Seventy-five dental implants were contaminated with a bacterial suspension and randomly divided into five groups (n = 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.

Stability of peri-implantitis surgical reconstructive therapy-a (> 2 years) follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This follow-up study aimed to report the 24- and 30-month outcomes of a cohort previously enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on surgical reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with surgical reconstructive therapy with or without the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser. Within-group and between-group comparisons were tested with mixed model with repeated measures.

RESULTS

Regarding peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) reduction (control vs. laser test group) between 6 months (- 1.85 vs. - 2.65 mm) and 30 months (- 1.84 vs. - 3.04 mm), the laser group showed statistically significant changes but not the control group. In terms of radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) at 6 months (- 1.1 vs. - 1.46 mm) to 24 months (- 1.96 vs. - 2.82 mm), both groups showed statistical difference compared to baseline. The six explanted implants all were featured by severe peri-implantitis and mostly with no or limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm) at baseline and membrane exposure after surgery. Among the 15 retained cases, eight cases achieved more than 50% peri-implant bone level gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation and follow-up time frame of this trial, the outcome of the surgical reconstructive therapy sustained or improved in most of the cases. However, 25% of the implants with severe peri-implantitis failed 2 years after the surgical reconstructive therapy. The use of Er:YAG laser favors PPD reduction in the longer term up to 30 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Longer-term follow-up on reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis revealed sustained or improved stability in certain cases, but the survival of implants with severe peri-implantitis has its limitation, especially when there is limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm or no KT).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03127228 and HUM00160290.

Effect of Air Polishing on the Treatment of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peri-implant diseases have become one of the notable biological complications of postrehabilitation with implant-supported restorations. Effective modalities for decontamination of biofilm deposits around implant surfaces are critical for resolution of the inflammation. Air polishing is one of the recommended clinical methods for treating peri-implant diseases. This systematic review assessed clinical evidence on efficacy of using air polishing technology for the management of peri-implant diseases, including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Four electronic databases from January 1990 to December 2022 were searched to identify the relative human randomized clinical trials that applied air polishing for nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Twelve articles were selected. For treating peri-implant mucositis, air polishing showed a comparable effect to ultrasonic scaling in the reduction of bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD). The nonsurgical approach of air polishing in treating peri-implantitis varied in the reduction of BOP, PPD, and clinical attachment level (CAL) in evaluated studies. Air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was comparable to mechanical cleaning, implantoplasty, and the use of Ti-brush, in regards to the significant reduction of BOP, PPD, and CAL, as well as the improvement of the bone level between baseline and follow-ups. The standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval of the studied parameters was estimated using the random effect model; however, statistical differences were not detected between air polishing and comparative modalities in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Within the limitations of this review, the application of air polishing did not result in more favorable outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant diseases compared to other modalities.

Evaluation of the inflammatory and osteogenic response induced by titanium particles released during implantoplasty of dental implants

Implantoplasty is a mechanical decontamination technique that consists of removing the threads and polishing and smoothing the dental implant surface. During implantoplasty there is a large release of titanium metal particles that might provoke a proinflammatory response and reduce the viability of osteogenic cells. We analyze the inflammatory and osteogenic response induced by Ti6Al4V particles released during implantoplasty and by as-received commercially pure Ti particles. Macrophages stimulated with metal particles obtained by implantoplasty and with as-received Ti particles showed an increased proinflammatory expression of TNF-α and a decreased expression of TGF-β and CD206. Regarding cytokine release, there was an increase in IL-1β, while IL-10 decreased. The osteogenic response of Ti6Al4V extracts showed a significant decrease in Runx2 and OC expression compared to the controls and commercially pure Ti extracts. There were no relevant changes in ALP activity. Thus, implantoplasty releases metal particles that seems to induce a pro-inflammatory response and reduce the expression of osteogenic markers.

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

Objectives

The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM).

Materials and methods

A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.

Results

Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent.

Conclusion

Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-022-00426-2.