In situ dental implant installation after decontamination in a previously peri-implant diseased site: A pilot study

Young Taek Kim, Jae Kook Cha, Jung Chul Park, Ui Won Jung, Chang Sung Kim, Kyoo Sung Cho, Seong Ho Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases. Methods: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H2O2. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically. Results: The untreated implants and H2O2-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site. Conclusions: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)13-19
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Periodontal and Implant Science
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012 Feb 1

Fingerprint

Dental Implants
Decontamination
Peri-Implantitis
Osseointegration
Bone and Bones
Mucositis
Inflammation
Cheek
Tongue
Regeneration
Dogs

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery
  • Periodontics

Cite this

@article{c64fbdee1ac14542a65a824df2b94a6e,
title = "In situ dental implant installation after decontamination in a previously peri-implant diseased site: A pilot study",
abstract = "Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases. Methods: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H2O2. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically. Results: The untreated implants and H2O2-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site. Conclusions: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.",
author = "Kim, {Young Taek} and Cha, {Jae Kook} and Park, {Jung Chul} and Jung, {Ui Won} and Kim, {Chang Sung} and Cho, {Kyoo Sung} and Choi, {Seong Ho}",
year = "2012",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5051/jpis.2012.42.1.13",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "13--19",
journal = "Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science",
issn = "2093-2278",
publisher = "Korean Academy of Periodontology",
number = "1",

}

In situ dental implant installation after decontamination in a previously peri-implant diseased site : A pilot study. / Kim, Young Taek; Cha, Jae Kook; Park, Jung Chul; Jung, Ui Won; Kim, Chang Sung; Cho, Kyoo Sung; Choi, Seong Ho.

In: Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, 01.02.2012, p. 13-19.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - In situ dental implant installation after decontamination in a previously peri-implant diseased site

T2 - A pilot study

AU - Kim, Young Taek

AU - Cha, Jae Kook

AU - Park, Jung Chul

AU - Jung, Ui Won

AU - Kim, Chang Sung

AU - Cho, Kyoo Sung

AU - Choi, Seong Ho

PY - 2012/2/1

Y1 - 2012/2/1

N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases. Methods: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H2O2. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically. Results: The untreated implants and H2O2-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site. Conclusions: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.

AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases. Methods: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H2O2. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically. Results: The untreated implants and H2O2-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site. Conclusions: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865320045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865320045&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.1.13

DO - 10.5051/jpis.2012.42.1.13

M3 - Article

C2 - 22413069

AN - SCOPUS:84865320045

VL - 42

SP - 13

EP - 19

JO - Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

JF - Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science

SN - 2093-2278

IS - 1

ER -