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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Feb;27(2):827-835.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04608-5. Epub 2022 Jul 8.

Effects of an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution as an adjunctive to air-powder abrasion in open-flap surface decontamination of implants failed for peri-implantitis: an ex vivo randomized clinical trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution as an adjunctive to air-powder abrasion in open-flap surface decontamination of implants failed for peri-implantitis: an ex vivo randomized clinical trial

Gerardo La Monaca et al. Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate ex vivo the efficacy of an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution supplemented to surface debridement with air-powder abrasion in removing bacterial biofilm following open-flap decontamination of implants failed due to peri-implantitis.

Materials and methods: This study was an ex vivo, single-blind, randomized, intra-subject investigation. Study population consisted of 20 subjects with at least three implants failed for peri-implantitis (in function for > 12 months and progressive bone loss exceeding 50%) to be explanted. For each patient, implants were randomly assigned to surface decontamination with sodium bicarbonate air-powder abrasion (test-group 1) or sodium bicarbonate air-powder abrasion supplemented by amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution (test-group 2) or untreated control group. Following open-flap surgery, untreated implants (control group) were explanted. Afterwards, test implants were decontaminated according to allocation and explanted. Microbiological analysis was expressed in colony-forming units (CFU/ml).

Results: A statistically significant difference in the concentrations of CFU/ml was found between implants of test-group 1 (63,018.18 ± 228,599.36) (p = 0.007) and implants of test-group 2 (260.00 ± 375.80) (p < 0.001) compared to untreated implants (control group) (86,846.15 ± 266,689.44). The concentration of CFU/ml on implant surfaces was lower in test-group 2 than in test-group 1, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The additional application of amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution seemed to improve the effectiveness of implant surface decontamination with air-powder abrasion following open-flap surgery.

Clinical relevance: Lacking evidence on the most effective method for biofilm removal from contaminated implant surfaces, the present experimental study provides further information for clinicians and researchers.

Keywords: Air-powder abrasion; Biofilms; Chemical decontamination; Dental implant; Microbiota; Peri-implantitis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution applied on implant surface after air-powder debriding with sodium bicarbonate
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Simple bar chart based on the exponent (0.5) of mean CFU. The graph shows fewer CFU on implant surfaces of test-group 2 compared to those of test-group 1 or control group. The error bar represents the standard deviation of mean CFU/ml expressed using logarithmic notation
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Diagram of pairwise comparison of decontamination methods: the numbers reflect the average rank for each group, and orange lines reflect a statistically significant pairwise comparison. Pairwise comparisons are detailed in the table below the diagram: the first column indicates which comparison is made and in what direction; the test statistic column reports the difference between mean ranks of the two groups; the Std. error and Std. test statistic columns present the standard error and the standardized statistic test, respectively; the Sig. and the Adj. columns show the unadjusted and adjusted p value, respectively

Similar articles

References

    1. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):313–318. doi: 10.1002/JPER.17-0739. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Renvert S. Polyzois I (2018) Treatment of pathologic peri-implant pockets. Periodontol. 2000;76(1):180–190. doi: 10.1111/prd.12149. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Worthington HV (2012). Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri-implantitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev;1(1):CD004970. doi: 10.1002/14651858 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Figuero E, Graziani F, Sanz I, Herrera D. Sanz M (2014) Management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Periodontol. 2000;66(1):255–273. doi: 10.1111/prd.12049. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Mombelli A. The therapy of peri-implantitis: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(Suppl):325–345. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g5.3. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources