Premium
Lethal photosensitization and guided bone regeneration in treatment of peri‐implantitis: an experimental study in dogs
Author(s) -
Shibli Jamil Awad,
Martins Marilia Compagi,
Ribeiro Fernando Salimon,
Garcia Valdir Gouveia,
Nociti Francisco Humberto,
Marcantonio Elcio
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01167.x
Subject(s) - peri implantitis , osseointegration , dentistry , ligature , implant , titanium , medicine , biomedical engineering , materials science , surgery , metallurgy
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of lethal photosensitization and guided bone regeneration (GBR) on the treatment of ligature‐induced peri‐implantitis in different implant surfaces. The treatment outcome was evaluated by clinical and histometric methods. A total of 40 dental implants with four different surface coatings (10 commercially pure titanium surface (cpTi); 10 titanium plasma‐sprayed (TPS); 10 acid‐etched surface; 10 surface‐oxide sandblasted) were inserted into five mongrel dogs. After 3 months, the animals with ligature‐induced peri‐implantitis were subjected to surgical treatment using a split‐mouth design. The controls were treated by debridment and GBR, while the test side received an additional therapy with photosensitization, using a GaAlAs diode laser, with a wavelength of 830 nm and a power output of 50 mW for 80 s (4 J/cm 2 ), and sensitized toluidine blue O (100 μg/ml). The animals were sacrificed 5 months after therapy. The control sites presented an earlier exposition of the membranes on all coating surfaces, while the test group presented a higher bone height gain. Re‐osseointegration ranged between 41.9% for the cpTi surface and 31.19% for the TPS surface in the test sites; however differences were not achieved between the surfaces. The lethal photosensitization associated with GBR allowed for better re‐osseointegration at the area adjacent to the peri‐implant defect regardless of the implant surface.