Alberta Lucchese1, Michele Scivetti, Michele Giuliani, Carlo Lajolo, Rosario Serpico, Gianfranco Favia. 1. *Assistant Professor, Department of Odontostomatological, Orthodontic and Surgical Disciplines, Second University of Naples (SUN), Naples, Italy. †Dental Clinic, University of Bari, Bari, Italy. ‡Assistant Professor, Dental School, Catholic University, Rome, Italy. §Full Professor, Department of Odontostomatological, Orthodontic and Surgical Disciplines, Second University of Naples (SUN), Naples, Italy. ‖Full Professor, Department of Pathological Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cellular populations of gingival crevicular fluid cytological analysis of integrated implants sites have been investigated by using sulcular cytological brushing, as a means of providing an objective and reproducible technique for monitoring periimplant tissue health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients with osteointegrated implants bearing at least for 2 years were divided in 2 groups, A and B. Group A consisted of 30 subjects who presented scarce oral hygiene. In Group B, 30 subjects with a good oral hygiene were included. RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the data obtained by sulcular microbrushing of the 2 groups put into evidence significative differences in the expression of the microbiological and the cytological parameters. CONCLUSION: Clinical monitoring of parodontal and periimplant tissues makes use of several diagnostic tests ranging from clinical and radiological tests to biological assays. However, none of these techniques allows to evaluate periimplant tissue cytological status. This preliminary study suggested sulcular microbrushing might be a useful tool in the early diagnosis and in the micrological monitoring of peri-implantitis.
PURPOSE: Cellular populations of gingival crevicular fluid cytological analysis of integrated implants sites have been investigated by using sulcular cytological brushing, as a means of providing an objective and reproducible technique for monitoring periimplant tissue health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 patients with osteointegrated implants bearing at least for 2 years were divided in 2 groups, A and B. Group A consisted of 30 subjects who presented scarce oral hygiene. In Group B, 30 subjects with a good oral hygiene were included. RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the data obtained by sulcular microbrushing of the 2 groups put into evidence significative differences in the expression of the microbiological and the cytological parameters. CONCLUSION: Clinical monitoring of parodontal and periimplant tissues makes use of several diagnostic tests ranging from clinical and radiological tests to biological assays. However, none of these techniques allows to evaluate periimplant tissue cytological status. This preliminary study suggested sulcular microbrushing might be a useful tool in the early diagnosis and in the micrological monitoring of peri-implantitis.