At a glance
ClinicalIndex Comparison RecordStandardized by ClinicalIndex from the ClinicalTrials.gov record · verify against the source.
The Effect of Different Dental Implant Surface Characteristics on Bone Immunological Biomarkers and Microbiological Parameters: A Randomized Clinical Study
In Brief
A clinical study evaluating PICF, Perio-paper®, Subgingival Plaque, Hu-Friedy®, and 2 other interventions for Peri-implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis. Completed, enrolled 71 participants.
Detailed Summary
Objectives: To assess the levels of TNF-α, PGE2, RANKL, RANK, OPG, which are immunological markers of peri-implant disease and F. nucleatum, P. gingivalis, T. denticola, T. forsythia, P. intermedia, S. oralis, which are microbiological agents of peri-implantitis, in areas where SLA, fluorine-modified and anodized implant surfaces are used. Material and methods: In this study, 71 implants of 37 patients were assessed. The patients were grouped according to the surface characteristics of the implants. Group 1: SLA surface, Group 2: Fluorine modifying surface, Group 3:Anodization surface Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depths (PD), clinical attachment levels (CAL) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) were measured. Peri-implant sulcus fluid and subgingival plaque samples were collected. Results: PI was found to be significantly lowest in Group 1, higher in Group 3. Group 3 implants were found to have more bleeding on probing significantly. It was found to be higher peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in Group 3. GI, PD, CAL, KTW were not found to differ between groups. No significant differences were found between TNF-α, PGE2, RANKL, RANK, OPG. While F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, T. denticola and P. intermedia were found to be significant highest in Group 3, P. gingivalis and S. oralis were found to be high in Group 2. Conclusion: Peri-implantitis rate, BOP and PI were found to be higher in Group 3. F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, T. denticola, and P. intermedia were found to be significantly high in Group 3 implants. This situation can be associated with the porous structure of anodized surface.
Study Details
Timeline
Interventions
PICF was collected from the mesio-buccal area of the implant by using paper tapes. Paper tapes were placed 1-2 mm inside the peri-implant sulcus by using a dental tweezer. After they were kept for 30 s, the paper tapes were placed in sterile microcentrifuge tubes which contained 200 µL phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The tubes were kept at -80°C until the analysis day. TNF-α, PGE2, RANKL, RANK, and OPG, which are immunological markers of peri-implant disease were compared between groups.
Subgingival plaque samples were collected about 15 min after PICF was collected. Supragingival plaque was carefully removed by using a sterile scale. Implants were isolated using cotton rolls and dried with an air spray. Subgingival plaque samples were collected from the mesio-buccal area of the implant by using sterile plastic Gracey curettes during 30 s (Hu-Friedy). The samples collected were transferred to sterile microcentrifuge tubes containing 200 µL PBS. The tubes were kept at -80°C until the analysis day. Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Tannerella forsythia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, and Streptococcus oralis, which are microbiological agents of peri-implantitis were compared between groups.
Clinical periodontal measurements were recorded using Williams probe. The plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, and keratinised tissue width around the implant were recorded. The implants included were categorised into three groups, namely, healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Panoramic radiographs were acquired to assess the interproximal bone levels around the implant.
Age, gender and state of smoking were compared between groups.