Luigi Canullo1, Tullio Genova2, Paolo Pesce3, Yasushi Nakajima4, Daichi Yonezawa5, Federico Mussano6. 1. Private Practice, Via Nizza 46, 00198 Rome, Italy. Electronic address: luigicanullo@yahoo.com. 2. University of Turin, Italy. Electronic address: tullio.genova@unito.it. 3. University of Genoa, Italy. Electronic address: paolo.pesce@unige.it. 4. ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odontologica, Rimini, Italy; Department of Oral Implantology, Osaka Dental University, Osaka, Japan. Electronic address: y.nakajima@me.com. 5. ARDEC Academy, Ariminum Odontologica, Rimini, Italy; Department of Oral Implantology, Osaka Dental University, Osaka, Japan; Department of Applied Prosthodontics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Japan. Electronic address: yonezawadental@gmail.com. 6. University of Turin, Italy. Electronic address: federico.mussano@unito.it.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Plasma of argon was demonstrated to improve protein and cell adhesion on implant surface. On the other hand, increased surface energy and hydrophilicity could potentially amplify the risks of implant surface contamination during clinical phases, risks that have not yet been evaluated in Literature. The aim of the present in vitro study was to verify if Plasma treatment could alter the implant surface characteristics and its ability to remain sterile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants from 9 brands were collected (n=11). One implant for each company was used for SEM surface analysis. To perform the microbiological analysis, ten implants from each company were used and randomly split by allocation either in test or control group. To replicate the surgical work flow, both test and control samples were left 60s in clinical environment. Bacterial growth analysis was performed. Optical density at 600nm was measured as readout of bacterial growth and colony forming unit (CFU) after 24h was evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test. A p-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: SEM analysis revealed different categories of implant surface roughness. The optical density confirmed a readout of bacterial growth between 4 and 7 with no significant differences within groups. The number of CFU/ml for each measured sample (test and control) was lower than 102 and failed to present significant differences. CONCLUSION: Surface activation using plasma of argon did not affect the degree of implant contamination, allowing to maintain a substantial sterility of the implant independently of its morphology. This may allow in the next future the use of bioactivation through plasma of argon to exploit the superhydrophilicity deriving from this biophysical process.
BACKGROUND: Plasma of argon was demonstrated to improve protein and cell adhesion on implant surface. On the other hand, increased surface energy and hydrophilicity could potentially amplify the risks of implant surface contamination during clinical phases, risks that have not yet been evaluated in Literature. The aim of the present in vitro study was to verify if Plasma treatment could alter the implant surface characteristics and its ability to remain sterile. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants from 9 brands were collected (n=11). One implant for each company was used for SEM surface analysis. To perform the microbiological analysis, ten implants from each company were used and randomly split by allocation either in test or control group. To replicate the surgical work flow, both test and control samples were left 60s in clinical environment. Bacterial growth analysis was performed. Optical density at 600nm was measured as readout of bacterial growth and colony forming unit (CFU) after 24h was evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed by using the Wilcoxon Mann Whitney test. A p-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: SEM analysis revealed different categories of implant surface roughness. The optical density confirmed a readout of bacterial growth between 4 and 7 with no significant differences within groups. The number of CFU/ml for each measured sample (test and control) was lower than 102 and failed to present significant differences. CONCLUSION: Surface activation using plasma of argon did not affect the degree of implant contamination, allowing to maintain a substantial sterility of the implant independently of its morphology. This may allow in the next future the use of bioactivation through plasma of argon to exploit the superhydrophilicity deriving from this biophysical process.