Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Decontamination of dental implant surfaces by means of photodynamic therapy

Full text
Author(s):
Marotti, Juliana [1, 2] ; Tortamano, Pedro [3] ; Cai, Silvana [4] ; Ribeiro, Martha Simoes [5] ; Miranda Franco, Joao Eduardo [3] ; de Campos, Tomie Toyota [3]
Total Authors: 6
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Hosp RWTH Aachen, Dept Prosthodont & Dent Mat, Fac Med, D-52074 Aachen - Germany
[2] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Protese, Fac Odontol, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo - Brazil
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Prosthodont, Sch Dent, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo - Brazil
[4] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Microbiol, Inst Biomed, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo - Brazil
[5] Univ Sao Paulo, Ctr Lasers & Applicat, IPEN CNEN SP, BR-05508000 Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 5
Document type: Journal article
Source: Lasers in Medical Science; v. 28, n. 1, p. 303-309, JAN 2013.
Web of Science Citations: 38
Abstract

Several implant surface debridement methods have been reported for the treatment of peri-implantitis, however, some of them can damage the implant surface or promote bacterial resistance. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a new treatment option for peri-implantitis. The aim of this in vitro study was to analyze implant surface decontamination by means of PDT. Sixty implants were equally distributed (n = 10) into four groups and two subgroups. In group G1 there was no decontamination, while in G2 decontamination was performed with chlorhexidine. G3 (PDT -aEuro parts per thousand laser + dye) and G4 (laser, without dye) were divided into two subgroups each; with PDT performed for 3 min in G3a and G4a, and for 5 min in G3b and G4b. After 5 min in contact with methylene blue dye (G3), the implants were irradiated (G3 and G4) with a low-level laser (GaAlAs, 660 nm, 30 mW) for 3 or 5 min (7.2 and 12 J). After the dilutions, culture media were kept in an anaerobic atmosphere for 1 week, and then colony forming units were counted. There was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between G1 and the other groups, and between G4 in comparison with G2 and G3. Better decontamination was obtained in G2 and G3, with no statistically significant difference between them. The results of this study suggest that photodynamic therapy can be considered an efficient method for reducing bacteria on implant surfaces, whereas laser irradiation without dye was less efficient than PDT. (AU)