» Articles » PMID: 36452367

Microbiological Cleaning and Disinfection Efficacy of a Three-stage Ultrasonic Processing Protocol for CAD-CAM Implant Abutments

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2022 Dec 1
PMID 36452367
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD-CAM) of implant abutments has been shown to result in surface contamination from site-specific milling and fabrication processes. If not removed, these contaminants can have a potentially adverse effect and may trigger inflammatory responses of the peri-implant tissues. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the bacterial disinfection and cleaning efficacy of ultrasonic reprocessing in approved disinfectants to reduce the microbial load of CAD-CAM abutments.

Materials And Methods: Four different types of custom implant abutments (total N = 32) with eight specimens in each test group (type I to IV) were CAD-CAM manufactured. In two separate contamination experiments, specimens were contaminated with heparinized sheep blood alone and with heparinized sheep blood and the test bacterium Enterococcus faecium. Abutments in the test group were processed according to a three-stage ultrasonic protocol and assessed qualitatively and quantitatively by determination of residual protein. Ultrasonicated specimens contaminated with sheep blood and were additionally eluted and the dilutions were incubated on agar plates for seven days. The determined bacterial counts were expressed as colony-forming units (CFU).

Results: Ultrasonic reprocessing resulted in a substantial decrease in residual bacterial protein to less than 80 µg and a reduction in microbiota of more than 7 log levels of CFU for all abutment types, exceeding the effect required for disinfection.

Conclusion: A three-stage ultrasonic cleaning and disinfection protocol results in effective bacterial decontamination. The procedure is reproducible and complies with the standardized reprocessing and disinfection specifications for one- or two-piece CAD-CAM implant abutments.

Citing Articles

A comparison of four decontamination procedures in Reusing healing abutments: An in vitro study.

Naghsh N, Hosseini A, Mogharehabed A, Yaghini J, Pezeshki Z, Khaleghi N Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(8):1141-1145.

PMID: 39176159 PMC: 11338015. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.06.013.


Effect of repeated autoclaving on implant abutments from genesis and bredent dental implant systems.

Ila Rajendra P, Abhijeet R, Pronob Kumar S Bioinformation. 2024; 19(13):1419-1425.

PMID: 38415044 PMC: 10895519. DOI: 10.6026/973206300191419.


Influence of exposure of customized dental implant abutments to different cleaning procedures: an in vitro study using AI-assisted SEM/EDS analysis.

Hofmann P, Kunz A, Schmidt F, Beuer F, Duddeck D Int J Implant Dent. 2023; 9(1):33.

PMID: 37730937 PMC: 10511398. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-023-00498-8.

References
1.
Zarauz C, Pitta J, Pjetursson B, Zwahlen M, Pradies G, Sailer I . Esthetic Outcomes of Implant-Supported Single Crowns Related to Abutment Type and Material: A Systematic Review. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34(2):229-249. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6314. View

2.
Lang R, Hiller K, Kienbock L, Friedl K, Friedl K . Influence of autoclave sterilization on bond strength between zirconia frameworks and Ti-base abutments using different resin cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127(4):617.e1-617.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.028. View

3.
Yan S, Li M, Komasa S, Agariguchi A, Yang Y, Zeng Y . Decontamination of Titanium Surface Using Different Methods: An In Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(10). PMC: 7287776. DOI: 10.3390/ma13102287. View

4.
Canullo L, Micarelli C, Iannello G . Microscopical and chemical surface characterization of the gingival portion and connection of an internal hexagon abutment before and after different technical stages of preparation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 24(6):606-11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02499.x. View

5.
Kern M . On the scientific evidence that the sterilization of customized implant abutments is required. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015; 8(3):219. View