Karishma Dash, Aradhana Rathod, Monisha V Sundaran, Priya Patel, Mansi Nautiyal, Muzammil M Ahmed
{"title":"不同药物对种植体表面去污效果的体外研究。","authors":"Karishma Dash, Aradhana Rathod, Monisha V Sundaran, Priya Patel, Mansi Nautiyal, Muzammil M Ahmed","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current investigation aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two different agents in decontaminating the surface of dental implants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>For this investigation, a total of 45 dental implants were used. In a solution of 40% brain heart infusion (BHI) and 60% entire unstimulated saliva, biofilms were grown on 45 dental implants which were divided into 3 decontamination groups at random (<i>n</i> = 15): Group I: Control group; group II: Ozonated water; group III: Chlorhexidine group. Processed samples were examined using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with a backscattered electron detector and a 25 kV image resolution. Data was gathered and analyzed statistically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The maximum biofilms removed in the 2% chlorhexidine group was 1.24 ± 0.10 followed by the ozonated water group was 1.40 ± 0.01 and the control group was 2.04 ± 0.16. And there was a statistically significant difference found between the three groups. On pairwise comparison, a statistically significant difference was found between the control group vs ozonated water and the control group vs 2% chlorhexidine groups. There was no significant difference found between ozonated water vs 2% chlorhexidine groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study concluded that both of the decontamination agents employed were successful in removing biofilm from the implant surface. But 2% chlorhexidine group is slightly superior to the ozonated water group in removing biofilm from the implant surface.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The most crucial steps in treating peri-implantitis are removing polymicrobial biofilm and decontaminating the implant surface. The soft and hard tissues around dental implants are impacted by an inflammatory reaction known as peri-implantitis. At the peri-implant crevice level, the implant and abutment surface are colonized by an aggressive polymicrobial biofilm, so the removal of biofilm is important to prevent the condition. How to cite this article: Dash K, Rathod A, Sundaran MV, <i>et al.</i> Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Agents on Decontamination of Dental Implant Surface: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(2):151-154.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"26 2","pages":"151-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Agents on Decontamination of Dental Implant Surface: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"Karishma Dash, Aradhana Rathod, Monisha V Sundaran, Priya Patel, Mansi Nautiyal, Muzammil M Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3788\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The current investigation aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two different agents in decontaminating the surface of dental implants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>For this investigation, a total of 45 dental implants were used. In a solution of 40% brain heart infusion (BHI) and 60% entire unstimulated saliva, biofilms were grown on 45 dental implants which were divided into 3 decontamination groups at random (<i>n</i> = 15): Group I: Control group; group II: Ozonated water; group III: Chlorhexidine group. Processed samples were examined using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with a backscattered electron detector and a 25 kV image resolution. Data was gathered and analyzed statistically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The maximum biofilms removed in the 2% chlorhexidine group was 1.24 ± 0.10 followed by the ozonated water group was 1.40 ± 0.01 and the control group was 2.04 ± 0.16. And there was a statistically significant difference found between the three groups. On pairwise comparison, a statistically significant difference was found between the control group vs ozonated water and the control group vs 2% chlorhexidine groups. There was no significant difference found between ozonated water vs 2% chlorhexidine groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study concluded that both of the decontamination agents employed were successful in removing biofilm from the implant surface. But 2% chlorhexidine group is slightly superior to the ozonated water group in removing biofilm from the implant surface.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The most crucial steps in treating peri-implantitis are removing polymicrobial biofilm and decontaminating the implant surface. The soft and hard tissues around dental implants are impacted by an inflammatory reaction known as peri-implantitis. At the peri-implant crevice level, the implant and abutment surface are colonized by an aggressive polymicrobial biofilm, so the removal of biofilm is important to prevent the condition. How to cite this article: Dash K, Rathod A, Sundaran MV, <i>et al.</i> Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Agents on Decontamination of Dental Implant Surface: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(2):151-154.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":\"26 2\",\"pages\":\"151-154\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3788\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Agents on Decontamination of Dental Implant Surface: An In Vitro Study.
Background: The current investigation aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two different agents in decontaminating the surface of dental implants.
Materials and methods: For this investigation, a total of 45 dental implants were used. In a solution of 40% brain heart infusion (BHI) and 60% entire unstimulated saliva, biofilms were grown on 45 dental implants which were divided into 3 decontamination groups at random (n = 15): Group I: Control group; group II: Ozonated water; group III: Chlorhexidine group. Processed samples were examined using Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with a backscattered electron detector and a 25 kV image resolution. Data was gathered and analyzed statistically.
Results: The maximum biofilms removed in the 2% chlorhexidine group was 1.24 ± 0.10 followed by the ozonated water group was 1.40 ± 0.01 and the control group was 2.04 ± 0.16. And there was a statistically significant difference found between the three groups. On pairwise comparison, a statistically significant difference was found between the control group vs ozonated water and the control group vs 2% chlorhexidine groups. There was no significant difference found between ozonated water vs 2% chlorhexidine groups.
Conclusion: The present study concluded that both of the decontamination agents employed were successful in removing biofilm from the implant surface. But 2% chlorhexidine group is slightly superior to the ozonated water group in removing biofilm from the implant surface.
Clinical significance: The most crucial steps in treating peri-implantitis are removing polymicrobial biofilm and decontaminating the implant surface. The soft and hard tissues around dental implants are impacted by an inflammatory reaction known as peri-implantitis. At the peri-implant crevice level, the implant and abutment surface are colonized by an aggressive polymicrobial biofilm, so the removal of biofilm is important to prevent the condition. How to cite this article: Dash K, Rathod A, Sundaran MV, et al. Evaluation of the Efficacy of Different Agents on Decontamination of Dental Implant Surface: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(2):151-154.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.