Effect of lack of plaque control after the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at surfaces with different characteristics: an experimental study in dogs

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of the induction of peri-implantitis and of plaque accumulation on implants with different surface characteristics after the surgical treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All mandibular premolars and first molars were extracted bilaterally in six dogs. After 3 months, two non-submerged implants were installed, each with either a hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched surface stored in saline solution (SLActive) or an acid-etched and modified with calcium ions surface (UnicCa). After 3 months, ligatures were placed in the sulcus around the implants to induce an experimental peri-implantitis and plaque accumulation was allowed. After 3 months, ligatures were removed and, after one more month of plaque accumulation, a surgical treatment was performed using gauzes soaked in saline and irrigations. X-rays were taken at this stage. Plaque control maintenance was established at the control sites, while plaque accumulation was allowed at the test sites (plaque sites). After 5 months, biopsies were obtained. Marginal bone levels were compared between x-rays and histological assessments.

RESULTS

At the time of peri-implantitis treatment, two SLActive implants were lost. At the euthanasia, seven more implants were lost only in the plaque group, one control and six test implants. The calculated mean values of the marginal bone level of the two surfaces at the treatment were 3.65 ± 1.71 mm in the control group, and 3.65 ± 1.76 mm in the plaque group (p = 0.463). The additional marginal bone loss after 5 months from surgical treatment was 0.67 ± 0.67 mm (UnicCa, 0.48 ± 1.06 mm and SLActive, 0.79 ± 2.10 mm) and 3.11 ± 1.38 mm (UnicCa, 2.67 ± 1.87 mm and SLActive, 3.94 ± 2.11 mm) for the control and plaque groups, respectively (p = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of plaque control after the surgical treatment of the peri-implantitis strongly influenced the marginal bone loss.

Biomechanical evaluation of laser-etched Ti implant surfaces vs. chemically modified SLA Ti implant surfaces: Removal torque and resonance frequency analysis in rabbit tibias

PURPOSE

To compare osseointegration and implant stability of two types of laser-etched (LE) Ti implants with a chemically-modified, sandblasted, large-grit and acid-etched (SLA) Ti implant (SLActive(®), Straumann, Basel, Switzerland), by evaluating removal torque and resonance frequency between the implant surface and rabbit tibia bones. We used conventional LE Ti implants (conventional LE implant, CSM implant, Daegu, Korea) and LE Ti implants that had been chemically activated with 0.9% NaCl solution (LE active implant) for comparison with SLActive(®) implants

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two types of 3.3×8mm laser-etched Ti implants - conventional LE implants and LE active implants were prepared. LE implants and SLActive(®) implants were installed on the left and right tibias of 10 adult rabbits weighing approximately 3.0kg LE active implants and SLActive(®) implants were installed on the left and right tibias of 11 adult rabbits. After installation, we measured insertion torque (ITQ) and resonance frequency (ISQ). Three weeks (LE active) or 4 weeks (conventional LE) after installation, we measured removal torque (RTQ) and ISQ.

RESULTS

In the conventional LE experiment, the mean ITQ was 16.99±6.35Ncm for conventional LE implants and 16.11±7.36Ncm for SLActive(®) implants (p=0.778>0.05). After 4 weeks, the mean of RTQ was 39.49±17.3Ncm for LE and 42.27±20.5Ncm for SLActive(®) (p=0.747>0.05). Right after insertion of the implants, the mean ISQ was 74.8±4.98 for conventional LE and 70.1±9.15 for SLActive(®) implants (p=0.169>0.05). After 4 weeks, the mean ISQ was 64.40±6.95 for LE and 67.70±9.83 for SLActive(®) (p=0.397>0.05). In the LE active experiment, the mean ITQ was 16.24±7.49Ncm for LE active implants and 14.33±5.06Ncm for SLActive(®) implants (p=0.491>0.05). After 3 weeks, the mean RTQ was 39.25±16.41Ncm for LE active and 41.56±10.41Ncm for SLActive(®) implants (p=0.698>0.05). Right after insertion of the implants, the mean ISQ was 58.64±10.51 for LE active implants and 53.82±15.36 for SLActive(®) implants (p=0.401>0.05). After 3 weeks, the mean ISQ was 63.82±5.88 for LE active and 66.27±6.53 for SLActive(®) (p=0.365>0.05).

CONCLUSION

We observed no significant differences in biomechanical bond strength to bone or implant stability in bone between the conventional LE Ti implant surface and the surface of the SLActive(®) implant or between the chemically activated LE Ti implant surface and the surface of the SLActive(®) implant during the early stage of osseointegration.