Prevention of internal bacterial colonization of dental implants: A comparative longitudinal observational study

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 34; no. 9; pp. 979 - 986
• Main Authors: Jervøe‐Storm, Pia‐Merete, Jepsen, Søren, Marder, Michael, Kraus, Dominik, Stoilov, Milan, Enkling, Norbert
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2023
• Subjects: Antiseptics; Bacteria; biofilm; Bone implants; Bone loss; Colonization; Decontamination; dental implant; Dental implants; Dental prosthetics; Disinfectants; Disinfection & disinfectants; Hydrogen peroxide; Observational studies; peri‐implantitis; Prevention; Reagents; Sampling; Sealants; sealing; Sealing compounds; Transplants & implants; decontamination; sealing; peri-implantitis; biofilm; dental implant; hydrogen peroxide
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.14124

Objectives Previous studies have indicated a progressive internal bacterial colonization of implants and possible implications for peri‐implant bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate a decontamination protocol, two disinfectants, and a sealant for their ability to prevent such a colonization. Materials and Methods Bacterial samples were harvested from the peri‐implant sulcus (external) and following abutment removal from the implant cavity (internal) during routine supportive peri‐implant care in 30 edentulous patients 2 years after they had obtained two implants. In a split‐mouth design, implants were randomly assigned to receive either internal decontamination alone (10% H2O2, brush) or additional placement of either sealant (GS), disinfectant agent (CHX‐varnish) or disinfectant gel (1% CHX‐gel), in the internal cavity before remounting of abutment/suprastructure. Twelve months later, internal and external sampling was repeated. Total bacterial counts (TBCs) were determined using real‐time PCR in a total of 240 samples (eight per patient). Results Total bacterial counts in the internal cavity significantly reduced overall treatment modalities 1 year after the treatments (4.0 [2.3–6.9]‐fold reduction; p = .000). No significant differences between the four treatment types were found (p = .348). Comparison of internal and external sampling points revealed significant correlation (R2 = .366; p = .000) with systematically higher TBC counts in external samples. Conclusions Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of disinfectant agents or a sealant did not show an additional benefit in the prevention of internal bacterial colonization of implants compared to a decontamination protocol alone.