PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(01): 161-166
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731926
Original Article

Low-Level Laser and Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Reduce Peri-implantitis–related Microorganisms Grown In Vitro

Marcelo H. Tonin
1   Department of Implantology, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Fabiano C. Brites
1   Department of Implantology, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
José R. Mariano
2   Department of Implantology, Unieuro University Center, Brasília, Brazil
,
Karina M. S. Freitas
3   Department of Orthodontics, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Mariana A. L. Ortiz
4   Department of Microbiology, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Paraná, Brazil
,
Samira Salmeron
5   Department of Periodontics and Implant Dentistry, Ingá University Center, Maringá, Brazil
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective Currently, dental implants are a predictable treatment option for oral rehabilitation; however, complications such as peri-implant diseases are increasing every day. Thus, the aim of this study was to verify the efficacy, in vitro, of two protocols against cultures of periodontal biofilm and Staphylococcus aureus.

Material and Methods Petri dishes for each of the following groups were used: control groups (C)—plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (C.B; n = 4) or S. aureus (C.SA; n = 4) without any treatment; laser groups—plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (low-level laser therapy [LLLT].B; n = 4) or S. aureus (LLLT.SA; n = 4) and treated with LLLT (660 nm, 30 mW, 50 J/cm2, and 47 seconds); antimicrobial photodynamic therapy groups (aPDT)—plates inoculated with periodontal biofilm (aPDT.B; n = 4) or S. aureus (aPDT.SA; n = 4) and treated with aPDT (red laser 660 nm, 30 mW, 50 J/cm2, 47 seconds + toluidine blue O (TBO) 100 µg/mL, and 1 minute). After treatments were performed, the contents of all plates were diluted and seeded for counting colony-forming units (CFUs).

Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey’s test, comparison of percentages, and independent t-tests with a 5% significance level.

Results Both treatments, LLLT and aPDT, significantly reduced the number of CFUs for the two types of culture, LLLT.B (3.69 × 106 ± 0.20), aPDT.B (2.79 × 106 ± 0.13), LLLT.SA (4.10 × 106 ± 0.12), and aPDT.SA (3.23 × 106 ± 0.10) when compared with control groups C.B (5.18 × 106 ± 0.43) and C.SA (5.81 × 106 ± 0.16; p = 0.000). When treatment groups were compared separately, there was also a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000). None of the protocols were able to eliminate cultured microorganisms.

Conclusion The LLLT and aPDT protocols effectively reduced cultures of periodontal biofilm and S. aureus in vitro, with the superiority of aPDT.

Keywords

decontamination - lasers - photodynamic therapy - biofilm - Staphylococcus aureus


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
01. Oktober 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Quirynen M, Herrera D, Teughels W, Sanz M. Implant therapy: 40 years of experience. Periodontol 2014; 66 (01) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pjetursson BE, Asgeirsson AG, Zwahlen M, Sailer I. Improvements in implant dentistry over the last decade: comparison of survival and complication rates in older and newer publications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29 (Suppl 308-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sinjab K, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Wang HL. Decision making for management of periimplant diseases. Implant Dent 2018; 27 (03) 276-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T. et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Periodontol 2018; 89 (Suppl. 01) S1-S8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE. Peri-implant mucositis. J Periodontol 2018; 89 (Suppl. 01) S257-S266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schwarz F, Derks J, Monje A, Wang HL. Peri-implantitis. J Periodontol 2018; 89 (Suppl. 01) S267-S290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG. et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 (Suppl. 20) S286-S291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lang NP, Brägger U, Walther D, Beamer B, Kornman KS. Ligature-induced peri-implant infection in cynomolgus monkeys. I. Clinical and radiographic findings. Clin Oral Implants Res 1993; 4 (01) 2-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Pérez-Chaparro PJ, Duarte PM, Shibli JA. et al. The current weight of evidence of the microbiologic profile associated with peri-implantitis: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2016; 87 (11) 1295-1304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Persson GR, Renvert S. Cluster of bacteria associated with peri-implantitis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014; 16 (06) 783-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Renvert S, Quirynen M. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (Suppl. 11) 15-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Klinge B, Klinge A, Bertl K, Stavropoulos A. Peri-implant diseases. Eur J Oral Sci 2018; 126 (Suppl. 01) 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Padial-Molina M, López-Martínez J, O’Valle F, Galindo-Moreno P. Microbial profiles and detection techniques in peri-implant diseases: a systematic review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016; 7 (03) e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mombelli A, Décaillet F. The characteristics of biofilms in peri-implant disease. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (Suppl. 11) 203-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Sahrmann P, Gilli F, Wiedemeier DB, Attin T, Schmidlin PR, Karygianni L. The microbiome of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microorganisms 2020; 8 (05) 8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cai Z, Li Y, Wang Y. et al. Antimicrobial effects of photodynamic therapy with antiseptics on Staphylococcus aureus biofilm on titanium surface. Photodiagn Photodyn Ther 2019; 25: 382-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Lang NP. Comparative biology of chronic and aggressive periodontitis vs. peri-implantitis. Periodontol 2000 2010; 53: 167-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Fraga RS, Antunes LAA, Fontes KBFDC, Küchler EC, Iorio NLPP, Antunes LS. Is antimicrobial photodynamic therapy effective for microbial load reduction in peri-implantitis treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Photochem Photobiol 2018; 94 (04) 752-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Salmeron S, Rezende ML, Consolaro A. et al. Laser therapy as an effective method for implant surface decontamination: a histomorphometric study in rats. J Periodontol 2013; 84 (05) 641-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Batalha VC, Bueno RA, Fronchetti Junior E. et al. Dental implants surface in vitro decontamination protocols. Eur J Dent 2021; 15 (03) 407-411 doi: DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721550.
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lerario F, Roncati M, Gariffo A. et al. Non-surgical periodontal treatment of peri-implant diseases with the adjunctive use of diode laser: preliminary clinical study. Lasers Med Sci 2016; 31 (01) 1-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Deppe H, Horch HH, Henke J, Donath K. Peri-implant care of ailing implants with the carbon dioxide laser. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16 (05) 659-667
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Mailoa J, Lin GH, Chan HL, MacEachern M, Wang HL. Clinical outcomes of using lasers for peri-implantitis surface detoxification: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2014; 85 (09) 1194-1202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lin GH, Suárez López Del Amo F, Wang HL. Laser therapy for treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: an American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review. J Periodontol 2018; 89 (07) 766-782
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Thurnheer T, Belibasakis GN. Incorporation of staphylococci into titanium-grown biofilms: an in vitro “submucosal” biofilm model for peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27 (07) 890-895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Harris LG, Richards RG. Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to different treated titanium surfaces. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2004; 15 (04) 311-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 de Sousa NTA, Gomes RC, Santos MF, Brandino HE, Martinez R, de Jesus Guirro RR. Red and infrared laser therapy inhibits in vitro growth of major bacterial species that commonly colonize skin ulcers. Lasers Med Sci 2016; 31 (03) 549-556
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Valle LA, Lopes MM, Zangrando MSR. et al. Blue photosensitizers for aPDT eliminate Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in the absence of light: An in vitro study. J Photochem Photobiol B 2019; 194: 56-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Passanezi E, Damante CA, de Rezende ML, Greghi SL. Lasers in periodontal therapy. Periodontol 2000 2015; 67 (01) 268-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Usacheva MN, Teichert MC, Biel MA. Comparison of the methylene blue and toluidine blue photobactericidal efficacy against gram-positive and gram-negative microorganisms. Lasers Surg Med 2001; 29 (02) 165-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar