The influence of implant surface roughness on decontamination by antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and chemical agents: A preliminary study in vitro

• Published in: Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy Vol. 33; p. 102105
• Main Authors: Balderrama, Ísis de Fátima, Stuani, Vitor de Toledo, Cardoso, Matheus Völz, Oliveira, Rodrigo Cardoso, Lopes, Marcelo Milanda Ribeiro, Greghi, Sebastião Luiz Aguiar, Adriana Campos Passanezi, Sant’Ana
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01.03.2021
• Subjects: Anti-Infective Agents; Biofilms; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Peri-implantitis; Photochemotherapy; Photochemotherapy - methods; Photodynamic therapy; Photosensitizing Agents - pharmacology; Photosensitizing Agents - therapeutic use; Titanium; Titanium surface; Treatment of surface; Peri-implantitis; Photodynamic therapy; Titanium surface; Treatment of surface; Photochemotherapy
• ISSN: 1572-1000; 1873-1597
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2020.102105

•Macro and microgeometry of dental implants influence the results of decontamination of bacteria.•Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be an alternative for peri-implantitis treatment.•aPDT showed the highest efficacy for decontamination on SLActive® and Acqua® surface implants. The aim of this preliminary study was to analyze the effectiveness of three different protocols of decontamination on five commercial moderate rough implants. The types of implants investigated were: Neoporos Drive CM (CM; Neodent®), Drive CM Acqua (ACQ; Neodent®), SLActive (SLA; Straumann®), Osseotite (OT; Biomet 3i®) and Nanotite (NT; Biomet 3i®). Implant surface properties (n = 2/type of implant; control groups) were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images to determine surface roughness parameters (SRP) and energy disperse X-ray spectrometry to determine the chemical composition. Implants were then inoculated with Aggregatibacter actinomycetencomitans in vitro (n = 6/type of implant;experimental groups) and the contaminated areas were determined in SEM images (500x magnifications). Decontamination of implants was performed in duplicate by three protocols: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), EDTA associated with citric acid (EDTA + CA) and 0.12 % chlorhexidine (CHX). The remaining contaminated area (rCtA) was determined in SEM images (500x magnifications). All quantitative analysis through SEM images were analyzed in ImageJ® software for two-dimensional parameters. No significant differences were found in SRP among implants (control group), except for Rv (lowest valley) between SLA vs. OT (p=0.0031; Kruskal Wallis post hoc Dunn). NT implants showed highest contaminated area vs. ACQ implants (68.19 % ± 8.63 % and 57.32 % ± 5.38 %, respectively; p = 0.0016, Tukey's test). SRP after decontamination showed statistical difference for Ra (arithmetical mean deviation) for all decontamination groups when compared to control (p < 0.05; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test), only CM implants showed statistical difference when compared decontamination protocols to control with highest modification of SRP for EDTA + AC group. For decontamination analysis, for applicability of different protocols in the same type of implant, only SLA showed statistical significant difference for aPDT vs. EDTA + CA (p = 0.0114; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test) with lowest rCTA for aPDT, however for ACQ implants the aPDT showed lowest rCTA with no statistical difference (p > 0.05; ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test). No statistical difference was observed between the decontamination protocols at other implant types. It can be suggested that the chemical-physical characteristics of dental implants can be effected by the process of contamination and decontamination by aPDT and chemical agents.