|Year : 2015 | Volume
| Issue : 6 | Page : 400-403
Bacteriological evaluation for one-and two-piece implant design supporting mandibular overdenture
Ahmed Abdelwahed1, Ahmed I Mahrous2, Mohamed Farouk Abadallah3, Hani Asfour4, Hussien A Aldawash2, Ebaa I Alagha2
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Future University, Egypt
2 Department of Restorative, Al-Farabi Collages, Jeddah, KSA
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt
4 Department of Microbiology and Parasitological, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdul-Aziz University, KSA
|Date of Web Publication||11-Dec-2015|
Ahmed I Mahrous
Building No. 111, 17th Street, New Cairo, Cairo
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Background: This study evaluated and compared the bacteriological effect of two-piece implants and one-piece implants in complete overdenture cases on supporting structures. Materials and Methods: Ten male completely edentulous patients were selected and randomly divided into two equal groups according to the implant design and surgical technique for this study; Group 1: Patients were rehabilitated with complete mandibular overdenture supported by two-piece implants one on each side of the lower arch following two-stage surgical technique and Group 2: Patients were rehabilitated with complete mandibular overdenture supported by one-piece implants one on each side. Evaluation was made at the time of insertion, 6, 12, and 18 months after overdenture insertion, by measuring bacteriological changes around implants abutments. Results: Complete overdenture supported by one-piece implants showed better effect on the bacteriological changes as compared to that supported by two-piece implants. Conclusion: Complete overdenture supported by one-piece implants one on each side of the lower arch showed better effect on the bacteriological changes than using the same prosthesis supported by two-piece implants.
Keywords: One-piece dental implants, overdentures, two-piece dental implants
|How to cite this article:|
Abdelwahed A, Mahrous AI, Abadallah MF, Asfour H, Aldawash HA, Alagha EI. Bacteriological evaluation for one-and two-piece implant design supporting mandibular overdenture. Niger Med J 2015;56:400-3
|How to cite this URL:|
Abdelwahed A, Mahrous AI, Abadallah MF, Asfour H, Aldawash HA, Alagha EI. Bacteriological evaluation for one-and two-piece implant design supporting mandibular overdenture. Niger Med J [serial online] 2015 [cited 2021 May 14];56:400-3. Available from: https://www.nigeriamedj.com/text.asp?2015/56/6/400/171623
| Introduction|| |
Overdenture is defined as a removable partial or complete denture that covers and rests on one root of natural teeth and/or dental implants. Aprosthesis that covers and is partially supported by natural teeth, natural tooth roots and or dental implant is called also overlay denture, overlay prosthesis, and superimposed prosthesis.
Overdentures supported by implants were the development of well-researched implant systems, providing a predictable success rate that made such restoration feasible. Recently, new one-piece implant design has been fabricated and consequently the implant surgical technique has been changed into one-stage technique with its benefits for the patients and either immediate or progressive loading protocols were used for prosthetic appliances.,,,
It is conceivable that implant materials, which are chosen because of their "friendliness" to tissue cells, offer particularly favorable grounds for bacterial adhesion and availability of "cell-friendly" surfaces for microbial colonization. Adhesion-mediated infections developing on implanted biomaterials respond poorly to antimicrobial treatment and often require that the device be removed.
Dental implants, however, can be designed in such a way that the surfaces on which bacterial colonization occurs may be reached from the exterior. Thus, in contrast to internal implants, there is a possibility for control of bacterial colonization on exposed surfaces and a potential for treatment of infectious conditions of peri-implant tissues.,
In a study, it was found that the microflora associated with stable osseointegrated implants serving successfully as abutments for overdentures was investigated, and 50% of the organisms cultured were facultatively anaerobic cocci, Staphylococci, and the rest were facultatively anaerobic rods. Repeated microbiological and clinical data were collected along 5 years after implantation. No significant time trends were noted. Separate samples taken within the same patient from different sites showed a similar composition of the microflora.,
The role of microorganisms in the development of peri-implant pathology has also been investigated in animals. Differences in the presence of putative periodontal pathogens on titanium implants and teeth were determined in animals in experimental gingivitis and in peri-implantitis/periodontitis situation. Similar colonization patterns were seen on implants and teeth.,
| Materials and Methods|| |
Ten completely edentulous male patients with age ranged from 50 to 60 years were selected from the outpatient clinic, Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry October 6 University. Consent forms were signed by all patients selected for this work before the treatment. The patients after preparation to receive an overdenture were randomly divided into two equal groups according to implant designs; 1st group and the patients in this group received mandibular overdenture supported by two-piece implant system using delayed loading prosthetic technique. The 2nd group and patients in this group received mandibular overdenture supported by one-piece implant system.
Surgical procedures for implant placement
- Surgical stent constructed using transparent acrylic resin on duplicated study cast
- Threaded endosseous implant system (titanium plasma spray) coating root form with 13 mm length and 3.9 mm diameter were used for all patients
- The implant was inserted manually and observing the correct insertion angle [Figure 1]
- 4 months after implant placement, all patients were recalled. For Group 1, the abutments were inserted in place and attached to the fixture using abutment screw, and for Group 2, the patients were ready for prosthetic procedures.
- Upper and lower primary impressions were made for all patients followed by a secondary impression that was made for the lower arch in the preconstructed special tray after proper border molding
- Centric occluding relation following the interocclusal wax wafer technique was made and a try in stage was made successfully
- The denture was processed, laboratory remounted, finished, polished, and delivered to the patient in the usual manner after clinical remounting [Figure 2].
The insertion appointment (considered as zero readings), 6, 12, and 18 months of postinsertion successively considered as follow-up periods.
A swap sample was taken from area around the implants by means of sterile swap, transferred and immersed in reduced transport media; all samples were carefully homogenized without aeration into 1 mm of saline and centrifuged for 30 s.
- One plate from each media was aerobically incubated at 37°C.
- Films were prepared from various colonies, stained with Gram's stain, and examined
- Certain organisms required special tests as Staphylococcusaureus, which was further identified by coagulase test done through the tube method
- Catalase production to differentiate between Staphylococci and Streptococci.
Visible colonies of each organism were counted in every plate, and the number of colonies-plate was multiplied by the corresponding dilution factor and by 10 to determine the total colony forming units per ml of suspension.
| Results|| |
Comparison between Group 1 (two-piece implants) and Group 2 (one-piece implants) regarding Staphylococcal bacteria:
StaphylococciAt 6, 12, and 18 months, the mean values of staphylococcus count around the implants revealed significant difference revealed between the two studied groups[Graph 1].
| Discussion|| |
Using the sterile swap in taking specimen from the area around the implant abutment would help in direct spreading the specimens on the culture plates, and the biochemical reactions were carried out to differentiate the microscopically resembled microorganisms. Films were stained with gram stain to see the morphology of the organism and its reaction to Gram's stain. Coagulase test was carried out through the tube method to identify S. aureus. Catalase production to differentiate between Staphylococci and Streptococci.
Regarding Group1, the microgap, which is the most effective factor for bacterial colonization at this critical area around implant, provides a good media for inflammation around implant neck and subsequently leads to bone resorption, and regarding Group2(one-piece implant), the design eliminates the microgap and that decrease the possibility for bacterial colonization.
Despite strict oral hygiene measures and patient instructions about proper cleansing of the prosthesis and implant neck area along the 18 months follow-up period, there is tiny unreachable areas, especially in the microgap area at fixture-abutment connection, regarding Group 1 that area cannot be reached by the patient especially the subgingival portion of implant neck; that subsequently increase the possibility for bacterial colonization and that may explain significant difference in bacterial count around the implants between the two groups as regarding the four main types of bacteria that had been examined in the study (Staphylococci, Streptococci, L. bacilli, anaerobes).,
| Conclusion|| |
Within the limitation of the results of this study, it could be concluded that the complete mandibular overdentures supported by two osseointegrated one-piece implant design showed better effect on bacteriological changes around the implants abutments when compared with two-piece implant design.
Dr. Hoda Amr Mohie El-din, Professor of Removable Prosthodontics, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Egypt.
Financial support and sponsorship
October Sixth University, Egypt-Future University, Egypt-Al-Farabi Colleges, KSA.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Academy of prosthetic terms. Glossary of prosthetic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;81:89.
Zarb GA, Jacob RF, Bolender CL, Eckert ST, Fenton AH, Mericske-Stern R. Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients. 12th
ed., Vol.42. St. Louis: CV Mosby and Co.; 2004. p.60-6.
Cochran DL. Implant therapy I. In: The American Academy of Periodontology, editor. 1996 World Workshop in Periodontics. 1st
ed., Vol.30. Chicago: The American Academy of Periodontology; 1996. p.707-90.
Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90.
Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-3.
Joshi RI, Eley A. The in-vitro
effect of a titanium implant on oral microflora: Comparison with other metallic compounds. J Med Microbiol 1988;27:105-7.
Wolinsky LE, de Camargo PM, Erard JC, Newman MG. A study of in vitro
attachment of Streptococcus sanguis
and Actinomyces viscosus
to saliva-treated titanium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;4:27-31.
Leonhardt A, Dahlen G, Lindhe J. Bacterial colonization on internal surfaces of Branemark system implant components. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;7:90-5.
Overall CM, Zarb GA, Bower RC. Microbiota and crevicular fluid collagenase activity in the osseointegrated dental implant sulcus: A comparison of sites in edentulous and partially edentulous patients. J Periodontal Res 2003;24:96-105.
Apse P, Ellen RP, Henry PJ. Clinical and microscopic findings in edentulous patients 3 years after incorporation of osseointegrated implant-supported bridgework. Clin Periodontol 2004;16:580-7.
Van Steenbergen TJ, Van Winkelhoff AJ, Graaff J. Black-pigmented oral anaerobic rods: Classification and role in periodontal disease. In: Hamada S, Holt SC, McGhee JR, editors. Periodontal Disease: Pathogens and Host Immune Responses. Tokyo: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2000. p.41-52.
Baried D, Macki Mc Carteny, Cruck SM, Marion BP, Simmons A. General Microbiology. 14th
ed., Vol.45. ???: Elsevier pub; 2006. p.261-70.
Luterbacher S, Mayfield L, Brägger U, Lang NP. Diagnostic characteristics of clinical and microbiological tests for monitoring periodontal and peri-implant mucosal tissue conditions during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Clin Oral Implants Res 2000;11:521-9.
Gristina AG. Biomaterial-centered infection and microbial adhesion versus tissue integration. Science 2002;237:1588-95.
Dibart S, Warbington M, Su MF, Skobe Z.In vitro
evaluation of the implant-abutment bacterial seal: The locking taper system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:732-7.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]