Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/ abutment joints: Which is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2020 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Outros |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00121 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/201732 |
Resumo: | 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 |