Electrolytic Cleaning and Regenerative Therapy of Peri-implantitis in the Esthetic Area: A Case Report

Gianfreda, Francesco; Punzo, Andrea; Pistilli, Valeria; Bollero, Patrizio; Cervino, Gabriele; D’Amico, Cesare; Cairo, Francesco; Cicciù, Marco

doi:10.1055/s-0042-1750773

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are various cleaning methods mentioned in the literature for peri-implantitis such as airflow, small brush, and electrolytic. 7 26 27 There are chemical, pharmacological products, and herbal products that can be used in the treatment of peri-implantitis. 27 28 Mechanical debridement using air abrasion or polishing therapy provides great efficacy in cleaning the implant surface.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System

Pujarern,

Klaophimai,

Amornsettachai

et al. 2024

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Peri-implantitis is a common complication in implant therapy and it is one of the main contributing factors to implant failure. This can be prevented by regular maintenance with mechanical debridement. One of the recent mechanical debridement methods is air abrasion therapy using different abrasive powders. This study aimed to evaluate the two common abrasive powders of different sizes (sodium bicarbonate and erythritol) for their biofilm cleaning efficacy on dental implant surfaces. Materials and Methods In an in vitro setting, a total of 33 implants were divided into three groups: Group 1 (n =11) = no treatment; group 2 (n = 11) = air abrasion therapy treated group using a sodium bicarbonate powder (AIRFLOW Powder Classic Comfort, EMS Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland); and group 3 (n = 11) = air abrasion therapy treated group using an erythritol powder (AIRFLOW Powder Plus, EMS Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland). The implants in each group were subjected to biofilm formation, and group 2 and group 3 were treated with air abrasion therapy of two different powders having different sizes with the same settings. The particle sizes were sodium bicarbonate (40 µm) and erythritol (14µm). The surface characteristics of the dental implants in three groups were studied from a digital camera and under the scanning electron microscope at different magnifications. The comparison of biofilm-removal efficacy between the three groups was performed by using a one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Dunnett's T3 test. A p-value less than 0.05 was chosen to indicate statistical significance. Results There were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) between the two powder-treated groups for the biofilm cleaning efficacy. However, both groups showed significantly better biofilm-cleaning efficacy than the control group (p < 0.05). Conclusion This suggests that both powders are effective in removing biofilm from the implant surface under ideal conditions. However, there was no clear distinction between the cleaning potential of the two powders, as both performed in a similar manner.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System

Pujarern,

Klaophimai,

Amornsettachai

et al. 2024

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, a new electrolytic approach has been developed, which consists of applying a galvanic current to the implant, resulting in the formation of hydrogen bubbles on its surface, thus releasing the adherent biofilm [ 13 ]. Electrochemical treatment of dental implants combines the antibacterial action of bactericides with the direct oxidation of bacterial enzymes and proteins, resulting in a low free concentration of harmful chemicals, allowing the surface of an implant to be cleaned without altering its microtopography and without affecting its physical properties [ 13 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. In these studies, electrolytic decontamination outperformed glycine jetting, and only electrolytic decontamination was able to completely decontaminate the implant surfaces [ 13 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implant Surface Decontamination and Surface Change of an Electrolytic Method versus Mechanical Approaches: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Assunção

Botelho

Machado

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants are the preferred fixed oral rehabilitation for replacing lost teeth. When peri-implant tissues become inflamed, the removal of plaque accumulating around the implant becomes imperative. Recently, several new strategies have been developed for this purpose, with electrolytic decontamination showing increased potential compared to traditional mechanical strategies. In this in vitro pilot study, we compare the efficacy of an electrolytic decontaminant (Galvosurge®) with an erythritol jet system (PerioFlow®) and two titanium brushes (R-Brush™ and i-Brush™) in removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilms from implants. Changes in the implant surface after each approach were also evaluated. Twenty titanium SLA implants were inoculated with P. aeruginosa and then randomly assigned to each treatment group. After treatment, decontamination efficacy was assessed by quantifying colony-forming units (log10 CFU/cm2) from each implant surface. Scanning electron microscopy was used to analyse changes in the implant surface. With the exception of R-Brush, all treatment strategies were similarly effective in removing P. aeruginosa from implants. Major surface changes were observed only in implants treated with titanium brushes. In conclusion, this pilot study suggests that electrolytic decontamination, erythritol-chlorhexidine particle jet system and i-Brush™ brushing have similar performance in removing P. aeruginosa biofilm from dental implants. Further studies are needed to evaluate the removal of more complex biofilms. Titanium brushes caused significant changes to the implant surface, the effects of which need to be evaluated.

show abstract

“…During the last few years, in order to deliver as little damage as possible to the implant surface, several types of lasers have been developed and several protocols of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy have been established [3]. The electrolytic cleaning method showed promising results in the elimination of bacteria from the rough surface of titanium implants [12][13][14][15][16]. It is a newer method of decontamination, and it is based on the application of a galvanic current to the implant [12,13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Different Procedures for Titanium Dental Implant Surface Decontamination—In Vitro Study

Jordan,

Smojver,

Budimir

et al. 2024

Bioengineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Electrolytic Cleaning and Regenerative Therapy of Peri-implantitis in the Esthetic Area: A Case Report

Cited by 4 publications

References 42 publications

Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System

Efficacy of Biofilm Removal on the Dental Implant Surface by Sodium Bicarbonate and Erythritol Powder Airflow System

Dental Implant Surface Decontamination and Surface Change of an Electrolytic Method versus Mechanical Approaches: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Evaluation of Different Procedures for Titanium Dental Implant Surface Decontamination—In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About