OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate whether osseointegration can occur on rough implant surfaces that previously had been coated with bacterial biofilm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The premolars on both sides of the mandible in four beagle dogs were extracted. Following 3 months healing, three titanium implants Ti-Unite, Nobel Biocare were partially inserted in the left side of each mandible. Some threads protruded from the tissues into the oral cavity. Plaque accumulated on the exposed part of the implant. Following a 5-week healing period, the contaminated parts of each implant were treated using three different techniques: (1) swabbing with citric acid for 30 s followed by rinsing with physiological saline, (2) cleansing with a toothbrush and physiological saline for 1 min, and (3) swabbing with 10% hydrogen peroxide for 1 min followed by rinsing with physiological saline. The treated implants and one pristine implant (control) were installed to the full implant length on the contralateral sides of the mandibles. Following 11 weeks of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and biopsies were obtained. Ground sections were prepared for histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS: All treatment modalities were associated with direct bone-to-implant contact on the portion of implant surface previously exposed to the oral environment. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that rough surfaces, which were plaque contaminated and cleaned by different methods, can re-osseointegrate.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to investigate whether osseointegration can occur on rough implant surfaces that previously had been coated with bacterial biofilm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The premolars on both sides of the mandible in four beagle dogs were extracted. Following 3 months healing, three titanium implants Ti-Unite, Nobel Biocare were partially inserted in the left side of each mandible. Some threads protruded from the tissues into the oral cavity. Plaque accumulated on the exposed part of the implant. Following a 5-week healing period, the contaminated parts of each implant were treated using three different techniques: (1) swabbing with citric acid for 30 s followed by rinsing with physiological saline, (2) cleansing with a toothbrush and physiological saline for 1 min, and (3) swabbing with 10% hydrogen peroxide for 1 min followed by rinsing with physiological saline. The treated implants and one pristine implant (control) were installed to the full implant length on the contralateral sides of the mandibles. Following 11 weeks of healing, the dogs were sacrificed and biopsies were obtained. Ground sections were prepared for histomorphometric analysis. RESULTS: All treatment modalities were associated with direct bone-to-implant contact on the portion of implant surface previously exposed to the oral environment. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that rough surfaces, which were plaque contaminated and cleaned by different methods, can re-osseointegrate.
Authors: Diederik F M Hentenaar; Yvonne C M De Waal; Hans Strooker; Henny J A Meijer; Arie-Jan Van Winkelhoff; Gerry M Raghoebar Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2017-07-17