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.

Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Aim of the study: This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration, and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after the replacement of the restoration. Results: The mean PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 were 100%, BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8% and at T3 to 35.3%. Suppuration was found to be at a level of 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. The radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to the implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at mesial sites and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites at T0 and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and the improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.

Is Complete Re-Osseointegration of an Infected Dental Implant Possible? Histologic Results of a Dog Study: A Short Communication

Complete reosseointegration after treatment of periimplantitis was never published yet. This short scientific communication reports about results of a randomized controlled preclinical study. An electrolytic approach was compared to a classical modality (ablative, cotton pellets soaked with sodium chloride solution and H₂O₂. For electrolytic cleaning a complete reosseointegration was achieved in several cases serving as a proof of concept.

Treatment of Peri-implantitis-Electrolytic Cleaning Versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial-Six-Month Results

OBJECTIVES

The present randomized clinical trial assesses the six-month outcomes following surgical regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

24 patients with 24 implants suffering from peri-implantitis with any type of bone defect were randomly treated by EC or PEC. Bone defects were augmented with a mixture of natural bone mineral and autogenous bone and left for submerged healing. The distance from implant shoulder to bone was assessed at six defined points at baseline (T0) and after six months at uncovering surgery (T1) by periodontal probe and standardized x-rays.

RESULTS

One implant had to be removed at T1 because of reinfection and other obstacles. None of the other implants showed signs of inflammation. Bone gain was 2.71 ± 1.70 mm for EC and 2.81 ± 2.15 mm for PEC. No statistically significant difference between EC and PEC was detected. Significant clinical bone fill was observed for all 24 implants. Complete regeneration of bone was achieved in 12 implants. Defect morphology impacted the amount of regeneration.

CONCLUSION

EC needs no further mechanical cleaning by powder spray. Complete re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis cases is possible.

The Effect of In Vitro Electrolytic Cleaning on Biofilm-Contaminated Implant Surfaces

Purpose: Bacterial biofilms are a major problem in the treatment of infected dental and orthopedic implants. The purpose of this study is to investigate the cleaning effect of an electrolytic approach (EC) compared to a powder-spray system (PSS) on titanium surfaces. Materials and Methods: The tested implants (different surfaces and alloys) were collated into six groups and treated ether with EC or PSS. After a mature biofilm was established, the implants were treated, immersed in a nutritional solution, and streaked on Columbia agar. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted after breeding and testing (EC), and control (PSS) groups were compared using a paired sample t-test. Results: No bacterial growth was observed in the EC groups. After thinning to 1:1,000,000, 258.1 ± 19.9 (group 2), 264.4 ± 36.5 (group 4), and 245.3 ± 40.7 (group 6) CFUs could be counted in the PSS groups. The difference between the electrolytic approach (test groups 1, 3, and 5) and PSS (control groups 2, 4, and 6) was statistically extremely significant (p-value < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶). Conclusion: Only EC inactivated the bacterial biofilm, and PSS left reproducible bacteria behind. Within the limits of this in vitro test, clinical relevance could be demonstrated.