Does subgingival bacterial colonization differ between implants and teeth? A systematic review

Retamal‐Valdes, Belén; Formiga, Márcio de Carvalho; Almeida, Mariana Linhares; Fritoli, Aretuza; Figueiredo, Kadmo Azevedo de; Westphal, Miriam Raquel Ardigo; Gomes, Patricia; Feres, Magda

doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0064

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this sense, biofilm and its characteristics become extremely relevant in studies on the topic. 33 The similarities found between the microbiota of periodontal and peri-implant diseases [33][34][35] validated the use of the biofilm in this experimental model. The morphotinturial analysis, performed right after the collection, revealed the presence of Gram-positive and Gram-negative microorganisms, however, there was no biofilm characterization with identification of microorganisms because of the need for more complex analyses that demand higher cost and specific equipment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Dental Implants Surface in vitro Decontamination Protocols

Batalha¹,

Bueno²,

Fronchetti³

et al. 2020

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Dental Implants Surface in vitro Decontamination Protocols

Batalha¹,

Bueno²,

Fronchetti³

et al. 2020

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the etiology of peri-implant diseases, the oral microbiome initiates the inflammatory response of the peri-implant tissue. It is important to keep in mind that there are no specific differences shown in the literature between the composition of mucosal and gingival biofilm neither in the condition of health nor in disease [7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome seems to be the etiologic factor initiating peri-implant disease and leading to the inflammatory response resulting in pocket formation due to loss of peri-implant bone and leading ultimately to implant loss [6,7]. Depending on the different disease definitions, the reported prevalence rates of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis differ among studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of keratinized mucosa on the severity of peri-implant mucositis differs between periodontally healthy subjects and the general population: a cross-sectional study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The study aims to investigate the effect of reduced keratinized mucosa (KM) and other risk indicators on the severity of peri-implant mucositis in (i) the general population, (ii) in periodontally healthy patients, and (iii) in periodontally healthy patients without a history of periodontitis. Materials and methods Anamnesis and the following clinical parameters were taken: mucosal-index, bleeding on probing, local plaque index, oral hygiene-index, and width of KM. Mucositis severity score was determined for each implant. Multi-level and subgroup analysis was performed on the patient and implant level. Results Six hundred twelve implants in 130 patients were analyzed. Subgroup analysis showed significant associations between KM < 2 mm and the severity score in (ii) periodontally healthy patients (p = 0.014) and in (iii) patients without history of periodontitis (p = 0.017). Secondary outcome showed higher severity scores for patients with insufficient oral hygiene or without residual teeth (p ≤ 0.001), in maxillary implants (p = 0.04), and for the number of implants per patient (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion Within the limits of the study, one may conclude that a reduced width of KM is a risk indicator for the severity of peri-implant mucositis in periodontally healthy patients and patients without a history of periodontitis. Clinical relevance The results indicate a band of ≥ 2 mm KM to reduce the severity of peri-implant mucositis in periodontally healthy patients.

show abstract

“…The latest studies conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the distinct microbiota between peri-implant and periodontal diseases. 42,43 In contrast, others state that they may be different entities in terms of microbiological profile. 38 Therefore, further studies need to be conducted to define the microbiological profile of peri-implant tissues.…”

Section: Microbiological Implication In Peri-implantitismentioning

confidence: 99%

Current Concepts on the Pathogenesis of Peri-implantitis: A Narrative Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As implant treatment has been integrated in contemporary dental practice, complications with the forms of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis have also increased in prevalence. Peri-implantitis is the more severe biological complication and is defined as an inflammatory disease affecting peri-implant tissues resulting in bone and eventually implant loss. In addition, the treatment of peri-implantitis has currently become a substantial global economic burden. In the current study, a search was conducted in several electronic databases using specific keywords relevant to the article’s main topic. An increasing number of scientific reports have investigated the etiopathology of peri-implant diseases, focusing mainly on peri-implantitis. Microbial biofilm consists an important etiological factor of peri-implant pathology analogous to periodontal diseases. Although several data confirm that peri-implant infections are dominated by gram-negative bacteria, similar to periodontal infections, there is evidence that some cases may harbor a distinct microbiota, including opportunistic microorganisms and/or uncultivable species. Additionally, data support that several parameters, such as genetic predisposition of individual patients, occlusal overload, and local factors such as titanium particles and excess cement, may be implicated in peri-implantitis pathogenesis. Simultaneously, the release of titanium metal particles and their biological consequences or the presence of excess cement in the adjacent peri-implant tissues have also been suggested as factors that contribute to peri-implant pathology. A specific line of research also indicates the role of foreign body response to implant installation. This narrative review aims to discuss the current concepts of etiopathogenetic factors implicated in peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Does subgingival bacterial colonization differ between implants and teeth? A systematic review

Abstract: Belén RETAMAL-VALDES (a) Marcio de Carvalho FORMIGA (a) Mariana Linhares ALMEIDA (a) Aretuza FRITOLI (a) Kadmo Azevedo FIGUEIREDO (a) Miriam WESTPHAL (a) Patricia GOMES (a) Magda FERES (a)

Cited by 29 publications

References 33 publications

Dental Implants Surface in vitro Decontamination Protocols

Dental Implants Surface in vitro Decontamination Protocols

The effect of keratinized mucosa on the severity of peri-implant mucositis differs between periodontally healthy subjects and the general population: a cross-sectional study

Current Concepts on the Pathogenesis of Peri-implantitis: A Narrative Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About