Objective The number of patients rehabilitated with dental implants has contributed to increased incidence of peri-implant diseases. Due to complex and difficult treatment, peri-implantitis is a challenge and an efficient clinical protocol is not yet established. Aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of two protocols for in vitro decontamination of dental implants surface. Material and Methods Twenty titanium implants (BioHE-Bioconect) were used. Implants were divided into five groups (n = 4). NC group (negative control): sterile implants; PC group (positive control): biofilm contaminated implants; S group: biofilm contaminated implants, brushed with sterile saline; SB group: biofilm contaminated implants, brushed with sterile saline and treated with air-powder abrasive system with sodium bicarbonate (1 minute); and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) group: biofilm contaminated implants, brushed with sterile saline and treated with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (red laser + toluidine blue O). The implants were contaminated in vitro with subgingival biofilm and distributed in groups PC, S, SB, and aPDT. Each group received the respective decontamination treatment, except groups NC and PC. Then, all implants were placed in tubes containing culture medium for later sowing and counting of colony-forming units (CFUs). Statistical Analysis One-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests were performed, at 5% significance level. Results Significantly fewer CFUs were observed in the aPDT group (19.38 × 105) when compared with groups SB (26.88 × 105), S (47.75 × 105), and PC (59.88 × 105) (p < 0.01). Both the aPDT and SB groups were statistically different from the NC group (p < 0.01). Conclusion Proposed protocols, using air-powder abrasive system with sodium bicarbonate and aPDT, showed to be efficacious in the decontamination of dental implants surface in vitro.

Background : Nowadays, osseointegrated implants are the most predictable option for oral rehabilitation. The significant increase in their use adds, as a consequence, a concomitant increase in complications such as peri-implantitis, characterized by peri-implant tissue inflammation with fast progression and marginal bone loss, which can promote exposure of implant threads to the oral environment that could be affected by products and substances used by patients during oral hygiene.Aim/Hypothesis : The aim of this study was to evaluate possible effects of fluoride and chlorhexidine on titanium implant surfaces.Material and Methods : Three double-blasted and acid etch surface-treated titanium dental implants were submerged in artificial saliva (control), artificial saliva and 2% fluoride gel solution, and artificial saliva and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate solution. Observational clinical analyses were performed after 01, 03, and 90 days. Qualitative morphological analyses of implant surfaces (3 fields per implant; magnifications 2.500, 5.000, and 10.000x) were performed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) after 90 (JSM-5910 JEOL USA, Inc).Results : Observational clinical analyses showed that the implant in artificial saliva and 2% fluoride gel solution evidenced color changes, probably indicating structural modification of titanium surface. There were no visual changes or surface modifications on implants submerged in artificial saliva and artificial saliva and 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate solution on images obtained with SEM. Small cracks and surface modifications (yellow arrows) were noted on the implant submerged in artificial saliva and 2% fluoride gel solution. Conclusion and Clinical Implications: Despite the limitations of the present study, it was possible to conclude that 2% fluoride gel may have the ability to change surface treatment of dental implants exposed to oral cavity.