Microbial findings at failing implants

Citation
A. Leonhardt et al., Microbial findings at failing implants, CLIN OR IMP, 10(5), 1999, pp. 339-345
Citations number
53
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry/Oral Surgery & Medicine
Journal title
CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
ISSN journal
09057161 → ACNP
Volume
10
Issue
5
Year of publication
1999
Pages
339 - 345
Database
ISI
SICI code
0905-7161(199910)10:5<339:MFAFI>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate qualitative differences in the subgin gival microbiota at titanium implants, ad modum Branemark, demonstrating cl inical and radiographic signs of loss of supporting tissues (peri-implantit is) as compared to implants surrounded by healthy tissues. A total of 37 pa tients demonstrating 1 or more implants with bone loss greater than or equa l to 3 threads, bleeding on probing and/or suppuration and 51 patients with clinically healthy mucosa and no bone loss were recruited for the study. I n each patient subgingival bacterial samples were obtained using paper-poin ts, and subjected to microbiological analysis by culture. The two types of clinical conditions showed distinct bacterial profiles. For implants with p eri-implantitis putative periodontal pathogens, such as Porphyromonas gingi valis, Prevotella intermedial Prevotella nigrescens and Actinobacillus acti nomycetemocomitans, were found in 60% of the cases and microorganisms prima rily not associated with periodontitis, such as Staphylococcus spp., enteri cs and Candida spp., were found in 55% of the peri-implant lesions. In cont rast, implants surrounded by healthy tissue demonstrated a microbiota assoc iated with periodontal health. The results indicate that the microbiota of the healthy peri-implant sulci is similar to that from corresponding condit ions around teeth. However, in peri-implant areas staphylococci? enterics a nd yeasts were found almost as frequently as periopathogens indicating diff erences as compared to the microbiota around periodontitis affected teeth. A microbiological diagnosis may therefore be of guidance for the choice of antimicrobial treatment in patients with peri-implant infection.