A Comparison of Four Decontamination Procedures in Reusing Healing Abutments: An in Vitro Study

Overview

Journal Saudi Dent J

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Aug 23

PMID 39176159

Authors

Narges Naghsh

Arezoo Hosseini

Ahmad Mogharehabed

Jaber Yaghini

Zahra Pezeshki

Niloofar Khaleghi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the effect of four decontamination methods on the level of residual contaminants in the re-usage of dental healing abutments.

Materials And Methods: In this experimental study, 50 used healing abutments were divided into five groups of ten as follows: 1. Control group: healing abutments were submerged in the ultrasonic device then autoclaved at 121 °C for 15 min; 2. Hypochlorite group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally immersed in 3 % hypochlorite for 20 min; 3. Chlorhexidine group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally treated with 12 % chlorhexidine; 4. Air polishing group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were subjected to air polishing; 5. Hydrogen peroxide group: Same procedure as the control group, but the healing abutments were additionally exposed to 3 % hydrogen peroxide. Then, all healing abutments were stained with a protein-specific stain, Phloxine B. Five photographs were taken of each healing abutment, with four capturing the body (shank)and one capturing the top. All images were analysed, to measure the stained (contaminated) areas of each sample. The obtained data were analysed using statistical software (significance set at p < 0.05).

Results: The one-way ANOVA test indicated that the average percentage of contamination residues on the occlusal surface did not show a significant difference among the five groups: control: 5.5 ± 2.8, sodium hypochlorite: 4.9 ± 2.5, Chlorhexidine: 5.3 ± 2.5, air polisher: 3.1 ± 1.8 and Hydrogen peroxide: 4.8 ± 3.1. (p = 0.26). The average percentage of residual contamination on the body surfaces (shank part) was significantly lower in the air polisher (1.7 ± 1.1) and sodium hypochlorite (2.4 ± 1.1) groups compared to the other three groups (Control: 6.1 ± 2.3, Hydrogen peroxide: 4.6 ± 0.7, Chlorhexidine: 5.4 ± 2.4) (p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The results of this study showed that the use of sodium hypochlorite and air polishing, alongside autoclaving and ultrasonic cleaning, effectively reduced residual contamination on the body surfaces of healing abutments.

Citing Articles

The effect of Er:YAG laser irradiation with different frequencies on surface decontamination of used healing abutments: a supplementary approach to sterilization.

Ehsani S, Ghasemi M, Etemadi A Lasers Med Sci. 2024; 40(1):3.

PMID: 39738691 DOI: 10.1007/s10103-024-04274-x.

References

Bali Z, Bali R, Nagrath S . Prion diseases: risks, characteristics, and infection control considerations in dentistry. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014; 2(4):236-40. DOI: 10.1111/j.2041-1626.2011.00080.x. View

AbuHaimed T, Abou Neel E . Sodium Hypochlorite Irrigation and Its Effect on Bond Strength to Dentin. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017:1930360. PMC: 5585644. DOI: 10.1155/2017/1930360. View

Chokaree P, Poovarodom P, Chaijareenont P, Yavirach A, Rungsiyakull P . Biomaterials and Clinical Applications of Customized Healing Abutment-A Narrative Review. J Funct Biomater. 2022; 13(4). PMC: 9781385. DOI: 10.3390/jfb13040291. View

Wiedmer D, Petersen F, Lonn-Stensrud J, Tiainen H . Antibacterial effect of hydrogen peroxide-titanium dioxide suspensions in the decontamination of rough titanium surfaces. Biofouling. 2017; 33(6):451-459. DOI: 10.1080/08927014.2017.1322585. View

Mouhyi J, Sennerby L, Reck J . The soft tissue response to contaminated and cleaned titanium surfaces using CO2 laser, citric acid and hydrogen peroxide. An experimental study in the rat abdominal wall. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 11(2):93-8. View

Odatsu T, Kuroshima S, Sato M, Takase K, Valanezhad A, Naito M . Antibacterial Properties of Nano-Ag Coating on Healing Abutment: An In Vitro and Clinical Study. Antibiotics (Basel). 2020; 9(6). PMC: 7345643. DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics9060347. View

Kyaw T, Hanawa T, Kasugai S . Investigation of different electrochemical cleaning methods on contaminated healing abutments in vitro: an approach for metal surface decontamination. Int J Implant Dent. 2020; 6(1):64. PMC: 7648783. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-020-00265-z. View

Rompen E, Domken O, Degidi M, Pontes A, Piattelli A . The effect of material characteristics, of surface topography and of implant components and connections on soft tissue integration: a literature review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006; 17 Suppl 2:55-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01367.x. View

Rees J . Asepsis in implant dentistry. Prim Dent J. 2013; 1(1):47-9. DOI: 10.1308/205016812803838348. View

10.

Cakan U, Delilbasi C, Er S, Kivanc M . Is it safe to reuse dental implant healing abutments sterilized and serviced by dealers of dental implant manufacturers? An in vitro sterility analysis. Implant Dent. 2015; 24(2):174-9. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000198. View

11.

Chew M, Tompkins G, Tawse-Smith A, Waddell J, Ma S . Reusing Titanium Healing Abutments: Comparison of Two Decontamination Methods. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(6):613–618. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5881. View

12.

Stacchi C, Berton F, Porrelli D, Lombardi T . Reuse of Implant Healing Abutments: Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Two Cleaning Procedures. Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31(2):161-162. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5552. View

13.

Kyaw T, Abdou A, Arunjaroensuk S, Nakata H, Kanazawa M, Pimkhaokham A . Effect of chemical and electrochemical decontamination protocols on single and multiple-used healing abutments: A comparative analysis of contact surface area, micro-gap, micro-leakage, and surface topography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023; 25(6):1207-1215. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13269. View

14.

Gosau M, Hahnel S, Schwarz F, Gerlach T, Reichert T, Burgers R . Effect of six different peri-implantitis disinfection methods on in vivo human oral biofilm. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21(8):866-72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01908.x. View

15.

Sahin S, Dere K . Evaluation of residual contamination on reused healing abutments. Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25(10):5889-5895. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03894-9. View

16.

Alotaibi M, Moran G, Grufferty B, Renvert S, Polyzois I . The effect of a decontamination protocol on contaminated titanium dental implant surfaces with different surface topography in edentulous patients. Acta Odontol Scand. 2018; 77(1):66-75. DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2018.1504986. View

17.

Browne V, Flewelling M, Wierenga M, Wilson A, Aprecio R, Richardson P . Sterilization analysis of contaminated healing abutments and impression copings. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2012; 40(5):419-21. View

18.

Mariotti A, Rumpf D . Chlorhexidine-induced changes to human gingival fibroblast collagen and non-collagen protein production. J Periodontol. 2000; 70(12):1443-8. DOI: 10.1902/jop.1999.70.12.1443. View

19.

Kyaw T, Abdou A, Nakata H, Pimkhaokham A . Efficacy of combined chemical and electrochemical decontamination treatments on contaminated healing abutments and their effect on surface topography: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022; 24(5):696-708. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13123. View

20.

Rasooly R . Expanding the bactericidal action of the food color additive phloxine B to gram-negative bacteria. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2005; 45(2):239-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.femsim.2005.04.004. View