Andrea Alonso-Español, Enrique Bravo, Ana Carrillo de Albornoz, María Martínez, Katharina Doll-Nikutta, Andreas Winkel, Meike Stiesch, David Herrera, Bettina Alonso, Mariano Sanz
{"title":"Antimicrobial Effect and Cytocompatibility After Using Different Decontamination Methods on Titanium Implant Surfaces: An In Vitro Study","authors":"Andrea Alonso-Español, Enrique Bravo, Ana Carrillo de Albornoz, María Martínez, Katharina Doll-Nikutta, Andreas Winkel, Meike Stiesch, David Herrera, Bettina Alonso, Mariano Sanz","doi":"10.1111/clr.14410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate in vitro the antibacterial efficacy and cytocompatibility of different implant-decontamination methods, using both 2D and 3D peri-implant mucosa models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Four decontamination methods [chlorhexidine (CHX), electrolytic treatment (GS), curcumin (CUR), xanthohumol (XN)] were compared in four independent experiments, three with a 2D peri-implant mucosa model on titanium surfaces and another on a 3D peri-implant mucosa model. These decontamination procedures were tested for their antibacterial effect using a multispecies biofilm model with \n <i>Streptococcus oralis</i>\n , \n <i>Actinomyces naeslundii</i>\n , \n <i>Veillonella dispar</i>\n , and \n <i>Porphyromonas gingivalis</i>\n for 24 h. Direct cytocompatibility evaluating the impact of the treatments on tissue cells as well as indirect cytocompatibility (colonization of treated implant surfaces by tissue cells) were also tested. Both outcomes were assessed by confocal laser scanning microscopy supported by neural networks.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>CHX demonstrated a strong alteration of cytocompatibility and antibacterial effect, but did not remove biofilm biomass. XN and CUR demonstrated antibacterial effect and biofilm removal action, as well as cytocompatibility. GS showed antibacterial capacity with a combination of areas completely clean of biofilm with others in which a non-vital biofilm remained. In the 3D peri-implant mucosa model, XN and CUR showed maintenance of the mucosa integrity after treatment, whereas CHX and GS displayed disruption in the mucosal layers.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Phytotherapeutics (CUR and XN) were the most cytocompatible substances and showed the largest antimicrobial effect. GS displayed antibiofilm activity with a localized “bubble-shaped effect” and impaired tissue cell morphology and integrity, compromising cytocompatibility, and CHX showed antimicrobial capacity, without reducing biofilm biomass and with altered cytocompatibility.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"36 5","pages":"626-639"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/clr.14410","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim
To evaluate in vitro the antibacterial efficacy and cytocompatibility of different implant-decontamination methods, using both 2D and 3D peri-implant mucosa models.
Methods
Four decontamination methods [chlorhexidine (CHX), electrolytic treatment (GS), curcumin (CUR), xanthohumol (XN)] were compared in four independent experiments, three with a 2D peri-implant mucosa model on titanium surfaces and another on a 3D peri-implant mucosa model. These decontamination procedures were tested for their antibacterial effect using a multispecies biofilm model with
Streptococcus oralis
,
Actinomyces naeslundii
,
Veillonella dispar
, and
Porphyromonas gingivalis
for 24 h. Direct cytocompatibility evaluating the impact of the treatments on tissue cells as well as indirect cytocompatibility (colonization of treated implant surfaces by tissue cells) were also tested. Both outcomes were assessed by confocal laser scanning microscopy supported by neural networks.
Results
CHX demonstrated a strong alteration of cytocompatibility and antibacterial effect, but did not remove biofilm biomass. XN and CUR demonstrated antibacterial effect and biofilm removal action, as well as cytocompatibility. GS showed antibacterial capacity with a combination of areas completely clean of biofilm with others in which a non-vital biofilm remained. In the 3D peri-implant mucosa model, XN and CUR showed maintenance of the mucosa integrity after treatment, whereas CHX and GS displayed disruption in the mucosal layers.
Conclusions
Phytotherapeutics (CUR and XN) were the most cytocompatible substances and showed the largest antimicrobial effect. GS displayed antibiofilm activity with a localized “bubble-shaped effect” and impaired tissue cell morphology and integrity, compromising cytocompatibility, and CHX showed antimicrobial capacity, without reducing biofilm biomass and with altered cytocompatibility.
期刊介绍：
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
