Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: de Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]
Publication Date: 2020
Other Authors: Taborda, Maria Beatriz Bello [UNESP], Momesso, Gustavo Antônio Correa [UNESP], Rocha, Eduardo Passos [UNESP], dos Santos, Paulo Henrique [UNESP], Santiago-Júnior, Joel Ferreira, Assunção, Wirley Gonçalves [UNESP]
Format: Other
Language: eng
Source: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
Download full: http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/201732
Summary: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature available for materials exhibiting the best efficacy in preventing biofilm formation in the interior of implants. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. This review is registered with the PROSPERO database and followed the suitability of the PRISMA protocol. The initial search resulted in 326 articles from the databases. After they were read, 8 articles remained, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Six of these 8 articles were classified as in vitro and 2 were classified as in situ. The regions of the implants evaluated ranged from the interface of the pieces to the occlusal upper access of the abutment. The implant connections evaluated the Morse taper, external connection, and internal connection. Meta-analysis of the quantitative data was performed at a significance level of .05. Cotton exhibited poor control of infiltration, even in combination with other materials. Isolated gutta-percha (GP) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape with composite resin (CR) or GP performed better as physical barriers. The best results for chemical barriers were observed by the application of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CG) gel, thymol varnish, and the deposition of Ag films onto the surface. The applied meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in comparison between the different types of implant connections (P . .05). The application of CG and thymol varnish antimicrobials was effective in preventing biofilm formation and easy clinical execution; these could be used in combination with CR, GP, and PTFE.
id UNSP_6e8b7ff2980f73c3219c1c7e36dcaa85
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/201732
network_acronym_str UNSP
network_name_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository_id_str 2946
spelling Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysisBacterial leakageBiofilmsImplant-abutment interfaceThe purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature available for materials exhibiting the best efficacy in preventing biofilm formation in the interior of implants. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. This review is registered with the PROSPERO database and followed the suitability of the PRISMA protocol. The initial search resulted in 326 articles from the databases. After they were read, 8 articles remained, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Six of these 8 articles were classified as in vitro and 2 were classified as in situ. The regions of the implants evaluated ranged from the interface of the pieces to the occlusal upper access of the abutment. The implant connections evaluated the Morse taper, external connection, and internal connection. Meta-analysis of the quantitative data was performed at a significance level of .05. Cotton exhibited poor control of infiltration, even in combination with other materials. Isolated gutta-percha (GP) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape with composite resin (CR) or GP performed better as physical barriers. The best results for chemical barriers were observed by the application of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CG) gel, thymol varnish, and the deposition of Ag films onto the surface. The applied meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in comparison between the different types of implant connections (P . .05). The application of CG and thymol varnish antimicrobials was effective in preventing biofilm formation and easy clinical execution; these could be used in combination with CR, GP, and PTFE.Department of Dental Materials and Prosthesis São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryDepartment of Surgery and Integrated Clinic São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryUniversity of Sacred HeartDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthesis São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryDepartment of Surgery and Integrated Clinic São Paulo State University (UNESP) School of DentistryUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)University of Sacred Heartde Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]Taborda, Maria Beatriz Bello [UNESP]Momesso, Gustavo Antônio Correa [UNESP]Rocha, Eduardo Passos [UNESP]dos Santos, Paulo Henrique [UNESP]Santiago-Júnior, Joel FerreiraAssunção, Wirley Gonçalves [UNESP]2020-12-12T02:40:21Z2020-12-12T02:40:21Z2020-04-01info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/other163-171http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121Journal of Oral Implantology, v. 46, n. 2, p. 163-171, 2020.1548-13360160-6972http://hdl.handle.net/11449/20173210.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-001212-s2.0-85084270854Scopusreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengJournal of Oral Implantologyinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2025-03-14T05:02:40Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/201732Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestrepositoriounesp@unesp.bropendoar:29462025-03-14T05:02:40Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
spellingShingle Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
de Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]
Bacterial leakage
Biofilms
Implant-abutment interface
title_short Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
author de Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]
author_facet de Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]
Taborda, Maria Beatriz Bello [UNESP]
Momesso, Gustavo Antônio Correa [UNESP]
Rocha, Eduardo Passos [UNESP]
dos Santos, Paulo Henrique [UNESP]
Santiago-Júnior, Joel Ferreira
Assunção, Wirley Gonçalves [UNESP]
author_role author
author2 Taborda, Maria Beatriz Bello [UNESP]
Momesso, Gustavo Antônio Correa [UNESP]
Rocha, Eduardo Passos [UNESP]
dos Santos, Paulo Henrique [UNESP]
Santiago-Júnior, Joel Ferreira
Assunção, Wirley Gonçalves [UNESP]
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
University of Sacred Heart
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv de Sousa, Cecília Alves [UNESP]
Taborda, Maria Beatriz Bello [UNESP]
Momesso, Gustavo Antônio Correa [UNESP]
Rocha, Eduardo Passos [UNESP]
dos Santos, Paulo Henrique [UNESP]
Santiago-Júnior, Joel Ferreira
Assunção, Wirley Gonçalves [UNESP]
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Bacterial leakage
Biofilms
Implant-abutment interface
topic Bacterial leakage
Biofilms
Implant-abutment interface
description The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the literature available for materials exhibiting the best efficacy in preventing biofilm formation in the interior of implants. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases. This review is registered with the PROSPERO database and followed the suitability of the PRISMA protocol. The initial search resulted in 326 articles from the databases. After they were read, 8 articles remained, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Six of these 8 articles were classified as in vitro and 2 were classified as in situ. The regions of the implants evaluated ranged from the interface of the pieces to the occlusal upper access of the abutment. The implant connections evaluated the Morse taper, external connection, and internal connection. Meta-analysis of the quantitative data was performed at a significance level of .05. Cotton exhibited poor control of infiltration, even in combination with other materials. Isolated gutta-percha (GP) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape with composite resin (CR) or GP performed better as physical barriers. The best results for chemical barriers were observed by the application of 1% chlorhexidine gluconate (CG) gel, thymol varnish, and the deposition of Ag films onto the surface. The applied meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in comparison between the different types of implant connections (P . .05). The application of CG and thymol varnish antimicrobials was effective in preventing biofilm formation and easy clinical execution; these could be used in combination with CR, GP, and PTFE.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-12-12T02:40:21Z
2020-12-12T02:40:21Z
2020-04-01
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/other
format other
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121
Journal of Oral Implantology, v. 46, n. 2, p. 163-171, 2020.
1548-1336
0160-6972
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/201732
10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121
2-s2.0-85084270854
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121
http://hdl.handle.net/11449/201732
identifier_str_mv Journal of Oral Implantology, v. 46, n. 2, p. 163-171, 2020.
1548-1336
0160-6972
10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121
2-s2.0-85084270854
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Oral Implantology
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv 163-171
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Scopus
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP
instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron:UNESP
instname_str Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
instacron_str UNESP
institution UNESP
reponame_str Repositório Institucional da UNESP
collection Repositório Institucional da UNESP
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv repositoriounesp@unesp.br
_version_ 1834484490215358464