Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jan;28(1):303-9.
doi: 10.1007/s10103-012-1148-6. Epub 2012 Jul 12.

Decontamination of dental implant surfaces by means of photodynamic therapy

Affiliations

Decontamination of dental implant surfaces by means of photodynamic therapy

Juliana Marotti et al. Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Jan.

Erratum in

  • Lasers Med Sci. 2013 May;28(3):1047

Abstract

Several implant surface debridement methods have been reported for the treatment of peri-implantitis, however, some of them can damage the implant surface or promote bacterial resistance. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a new treatment option for peri-implantitis. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze implant surface decontamination by means of PDT. Sixty implants were equally distributed (n = 10) into four groups and two subgroups. In group G1 there was no decontamination, while in G2 decontamination was performed with chlorhexidine. G3 (PDT - laser + dye) and G4 (laser, without dye) were divided into two subgroups each; with PDT performed for 3 min in G3a and G4a, and for 5 min in G3b and G4b. After 5 min in contact with methylene blue dye (G3), the implants were irradiated (G3 and G4) with a low-level laser (GaAlAs, 660 nm, 30 mW) for 3 or 5 min (7.2 and 12 J). After the dilutions, culture media were kept in an anaerobic atmosphere for 1 week, and then colony forming units were counted. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between G1 and the other groups, and between G4 in comparison with G2 and G3. Better decontamination was obtained in G2 and G3, with no statistically significant difference between them. The results of this study suggest that photodynamic therapy can be considered an efficient method for reducing bacteria on implant surfaces, whereas laser irradiation without dye was less efficient than PDT.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Irradiation on the surface of the implant placed on the black colored prefabricated plate
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparison of all groups after decontamination, given in log10 scale and standard deviation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Point graph: no of bacteria (×103)/mL, per group (except G1)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lindhe J, Meyle J. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(8 Suppl):282–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The efficacy of interventions to treat peri-implantitis: a Cochrane systematic review of randomised controlled clinical trials. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008;1(2):111–125. - PubMed
    1. Ntrouka V, Hoogenkamp M, Zaura E, van der Weijden F. The effect of chemotherapeutic agents on titanium-adherent biofilms. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(11):1227–1234. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02085.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Iglhaut G, Becker J. Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38(3):276–284. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01690.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ungvari K, Pelsoczi IK, Kormos B, Oszko A, Rakonczay Z, Kemeny L, Radnai M, Nagy K, Fazekas A, Turzo K. Effects on titanium implant surfaces of chemical agents used for the treatment of peri-implantitis. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2010;94(1):222–229. - PubMed

Publication types