| Literature DB >> 35877328 |
Simonetta D'Ercole1, Tatiane Cristina Dotta2, Marzieh Ramezani Farani3, Niloofar Etemadi4, Giovanna Iezzi1, Luca Comuzzi5, Adriano Piattelli6,7,8, Morena Petrini1.
Abstract
The objective of this study is to evaluate, in vitro, the microleakage of bacteria of 3 different implant connections for a period of 14 days. 60 dental implants (AoN) (n = 20) were distinguished into three groups, accordingly to the type of connection: External Hexagon (EH), Internal Hexagon (IH), and Cone Morse (CM) connection. All implants were inserted and fixed on sterile special vinyl support. Ten fixtures for each group were inoculated in the internal platform with 1.0 μL of Streptococcus oralis (SO) and the other ten with the same amount of Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). The penetration of bacterial suspension into the surrounding solution was determined by the observation of the turbidity of the broth. Five implants for each sub-group were randomly observed at SEM, to verify the correct fitting of the abutments. Considering the total of the samples analyzed, CM showed significantly lower bacterial contamination, with respect to IH. In particular, bacterial contamination was found in 45%, 55%, and 20% of EH, IH, and CM, respectively. Analyzing results for the type of inoculated bacteria, P. aeruginosa showed a higher ability to contaminate all the connections, with respect to S. oralis.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial contamination; bacterial microleakage; implant-abutment connections
Year: 2022 PMID: 35877328 PMCID: PMC9311948 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9070277
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1Study diagram.
Figure 23D rendering of the three implant platforms compared in this study ((A) = External Hexagone, (B) = Internal Hexagone, (C) = Cone Morse), with the relative longitudinal section of the implant/abutment connection ((D) = EH, (E) = IH, (F) = CM). Courtesy of AON (Grisignano di Zocco, Italy).
Figure 3Insertion and fixation of the implant in a vinyl support.
Figure 4(A) Inoculation of the inner part of implants with 1.0 µL of viable bacterial; (B) An implant-abutment connection assembled with a manual rachet; (C) An implant-abutment connection assembled with a manual ratchet and the dynamometric measurement of the torque.
Figure 5(A) Inoculation of a 3D printed peek cap in the upper hole of each abutment; (B) Placing of specimens in sterile tubes and nutrient solution; (C) Closure of tubes with cap.
Figure 6Samples placed into the nutrient solution during the follow-up. Left = turbidity of the broth as a sign of bacterial penetration; Right = no contamination.
Figure 7(A) SEM image of the External Hexagon connection; (B) SEM image of the Internal Hexagon connection; (C) SEM image of the Cone Morse connection.
Bacterial leakage in implants with different implant-abutment connections inoculated with Streptococcus oralis and Pseudomonas aeruginosa over a 14-day observation period.
| Implants | Bacterial Species | Contamination with Different Species % | Total Contaminations% |
|---|---|---|---|
| EH | 30% | 45% | |
| 60% | |||
| IH | 40% | 55% | |
| 70% | |||
| CM | --- | 20% | |
| 40% |