Comparison of osseointegration on various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning: a rabbit study.

PURPOSE To examine the osseointegration of various implant surfaces after bacterial contamination and cleaning. MATERIALS AND METHODS Four types of implant surface were manufactured: machined (M); plasma-spray hydroxyapaptite (HA); sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SA); and titanium anodic oxide (TAO) were manufactured. The surface characteristics of these implants were determined using a scanning electron microscope, an energy dispersive spectrometer, and a contact profilometer. Each surface was subdivided into control and test groups. Test implants were co-incubated with Prevotella intermedia for 2 weeks, then cleaned with cotton pellets, soaked in saline, and irrigated. Control implants underwent the same cleaning procedure, but without bacterial contamination. Four control or test implants with different surface types were randomly inserted into the tibia of 10 New Zealand white rabbits. After 6 weeks of healing, 5 rabbits were sacrificed for histomorphometry, and the rest for removal torque assay. RESULTS Bacterial contamination adversely influenced every implant surface in terms of bone-to-implant contact (BIC) ratio and required removal torque. The negative results reached significant levels for rougher surfaces (HA and SA). For both contaminated and uncontaminated samples, HA and SA implants required significantly higher removal torque than that required for M implants. CONCLUSION Bacterial contamination jeopardized osseointegration on every tested implant surface. A more negative effect on BIC was found for implants with rougher surfaces. However, contaminated rough-surfaced implants showed more removal torque resistance than contaminated smooth implants.

[1]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized controlled clinical study. , 2011, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  I. Abrahamsson,et al.  Implant surface characteristics influence the outcome of treatment of peri-implantitis: an experimental study in dogs. , 2011, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[3]  G. R. Persson,et al.  Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a single-blinded randomized longitudinal clinical study. II. Microbiological results. , 2010, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[4]  N. Lang,et al.  Comparative biology of chronic and aggressive periodontitis vs. peri-implantitis. , 2010, Periodontology 2000.

[5]  Yang Yang,et al.  Time-dependent degradation of titanium osteoconductivity: an implication of biological aging of implant materials. , 2009, Biomaterials.

[6]  T. Lee,et al.  The effect of microrough surface treatment on miniscrews used as orthodontic anchors. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  I. Polyzois,et al.  Re-osseointegration on previously contaminated surfaces: a systematic review. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  W. Att,et al.  Age-dependent Degradation of the Protein Adsorption Capacity of Titanium , 2009, Journal of dental research.

[9]  N. Lang,et al.  Effects of decontamination and implant surface characteristics on re-osseointegration following treatment of peri-implantitis. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  J. Bernard,et al.  A 10-year prospective study of ITI dental implants placed in the posterior region. I: Clinical and radiographic results. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  T. Lui,et al.  In vitro and in vivo biological responses of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings with posthydrothermal treatment. , 2007, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part A.

[12]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Comparison of naturally occurring and ligature-induced peri-implantitis bone defects in humans and dogs. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  F. Costa,et al.  Prevalence and risk variables for peri-implant disease in Brazilian subjects. , 2006, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[14]  F. Schwarz,et al.  Influence of different treatment approaches on non-submerged and submerged healing of ligature induced peri-implantitis lesions: an experimental study in dogs. , 2006, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[15]  Stefan Renvert,et al.  Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions. , 2006, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[16]  U. Lekholm,et al.  Prevalence of subjects with progressive bone loss at implants. , 2005, Clinical oral implants research.

[17]  L. Sbordone,et al.  Oral microbial biofilms and plaque-related diseases: microbial communities and their role in the shift from oral health to disease , 2003, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[18]  L. Skovgaard,et al.  Implant surface preparation in the surgical treatment of experimental peri-implantitis with autogenous bone graft and ePTFE membrane in cynomolgus monkeys. , 2003, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  A. Gustafsson,et al.  Microbiological findings and host response in patients with peri-implantitis. , 2002, Clinical oral implants research.

[20]  A. Mombelli,et al.  Microbiology and antimicrobial therapy of peri-implantitis. , 2002, Periodontology 2000.

[21]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Re-osseointegration after treatment of peri-implantitis at different implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog. , 2001, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  住田 真一.  Transmission of periodontal disease-associated bacteria from teeth to osseointegrated implant regions , 2001 .

[23]  G. Dahlén,et al.  Microbial findings at failing implants. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Resolution of peri-implantitis following treatment. An experimental study in the dog. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  T. Nagata,et al.  Inhibition of Osteoblastic Cell Differentiation by Lipopolysaccharide Extract from Porphyromonas gingivalis , 1999, Infection and Immunity.

[26]  N. Lang,et al.  Attempts to obtain re-osseointegration following experimental peri-implantitis in dogs. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[27]  D Buser,et al.  Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. , 1997, Clinical oral implants research.

[28]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Guided bone regeneration in the treatment of periimplantitis. , 1996, Clinical Oral Implants Research.

[29]  C. Quiñones,et al.  Contaminated implant surfaces: an in vitro comparison of implant surface coating and treatment modalities for decontamination. , 1994, Journal of periodontology.

[30]  K. Donath,et al.  The regenerative potential of plaque-induced peri-implant bone defects treated by a submerged membrane technique: an experimental study. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[31]  C. Aparicio,et al.  Comparative surface microanalysis of failed Brånemark implants. , 1992, The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants.

[32]  R. Lillie,et al.  Salt Zenker, a stable, nonhemolytic, formaldehyde-free fixative: the addition of salt to other acetic acid fixatives. , 1973, American Journal of Clinical Pathology.