|Year : 2021 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 105-108
Comparative evaluation of changes in microflora in delayed and immediate implant placement: An In vivo study
Shivendra Choudhary1, Neeraj Verma1, Santosh Anand2, Abhishek Sinha3, Daya Shankar4
1 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Patna Dental College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College, Patna, Bihar, India
4 Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
|Date of Submission||23-Sep-2020|
|Date of Decision||26-Sep-2020|
|Date of Acceptance||09-Oct-2020|
|Date of Web Publication||05-Jun-2021|
Department of Dentistry, Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Aim: This study is aimed to compare and evaluate the changes in the microflora in immediate and delayed placed implants. Materials and Methods: In this study, the implant site sample was taken and assessed during different phases of treatment for delayed and immediate implants. They were looked for Streptococcus, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Results: The results showed that Streptococci were found in a higher number in all the phases of the treatment. The presence of pathogenic organisms such as P. gingivalis and Fusobacterium, in considerable amounts, was seen in both the groups. Conclusion: Thus, we conclude that implant mode of placement, delayed or immediate placement does not alter the flora of the oral cavity. Organisms present remains the same in all the phase of the treatment. To prevent the disease, one must continuously monitor the implant, with the increasing age changes, the microflora is continually changing in the oral cavity. The periodontal health should be assessed before the placement of the implant, followed by follow-ups after a set period for a better prognosis.
Keywords: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas
|How to cite this article:|
Choudhary S, Verma N, Anand S, Sinha A, Shankar D. Comparative evaluation of changes in microflora in delayed and immediate implant placement: An In vivo study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:105-8
|How to cite this URL:|
Choudhary S, Verma N, Anand S, Sinha A, Shankar D. Comparative evaluation of changes in microflora in delayed and immediate implant placement: An In vivo study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 May 19];13, Suppl S1:105-8. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/105/317541
| Introduction|| |
Today osseointegrated titanium implants are successfully used as abutments for the rehabilitation in edentulous or partly edentulous patients. The 5- or 10-year survival rates reported for dental implants range from 82% to 95%, while its success rate is 73.5%–93.9%. The diagnosis of a failing implant can, at times, be challenging. Treatment of failed implant associated with bone loss is primarily due to bacteria-initiated disease, overheating of the bone at the preparation site and excessive loading of the implant.
Few complications associated with this lower success of implant are peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. The implant provides an oral cavity with a new artificial surface, prone to the formation of biofilm, just like a natural tooth. This biofilm triggers the inflammatory destruction of peri-implant tissue, known as peri-implantitis. A 5–11-year study on implant reported that peri-implant mucositis affects 40%–90% of implants in 80% of subjects, while around 20% of implants develop peri-implantitis.
Peri-implantitis was first considered as a complement of periodontitis, but the latest studies indicate that peri-implantitis pathology diverges from periodontal pathology. Some studies suggest that peri-implantitis and peri-implant bone loss incidence was more in subjects with periodontitis associated tooth loss. Moreover, peri-implant and periodontal diseases have few common risk factors such as age, tobacco use, and levels of oral hygiene. Thus, risk factors for the periodontal disease could also increase the risk of development of peri-implant disease confirm that both disorders share some etiopathogenic aspects. It is a well-established fact that microorganisms are the main etiological factor in the development of periodontal diseases. Hence, the composition of the microbiota in the peri-implant area may also influence the fate of an artificial fixture.
There have been many studies that analyzed the microflora at the implant site and periodontitis. However, limited data are available regarding microflora of the peri-implant sulcus without clinical periodontitis. Therefore, this study is aimed to compare and evaluate the changes in the microflora in immediate and delayed placed implants. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of microflora preoperatively during the operative phase and maintenance phase.
| Materials and Methods|| |
Approval of the study was obtained from the Ethical Committee of the institute. Written informed consent was taken from all patients that were included in the study. The study was conducted together by the department of oral surgery, prosthodontics and periodontics and implantology.
The study consists of 50 patients, males and females, divided into two groups. Group I was formed 25 patients in with immediate implant placement, and Group II is formed by 25 patients, in which delayed implant was placed. The age of the patient ranges between 30 and 52 years. At least, one titanium implant (MKIII, Nobel Biocare) was placed in all the patients according to the manufacturer's protocol.
Patients with the habit of smoking, alcohol, diabetes mellitus, immunosuppressive conditions, pregnancy, lactation, and systemic antibiotic therapy within 6 months before biofilm sampling or with an extensive fix or removable orthodontic or prosthetic appliance were excluded from the study.
The materials and media used for the study were sterilized. One day before, sample collection and implant placement, complete mouth scaling, and polishing were done.
The sampling sites were isolated using cotton rolls and any subgingival plaque if the present was registered and removed with the curette. The bacteria samples were obtained by inserting sterilized number 30 paper points in the depth of the gingival sulcus (both mesial and distal side) of the implant site and from the vestibule of the edentulous site on the alveolar ridge. It was kept in the position for 60 s.
These paper points with stored in sterile transport vials. They were transported to the laboratory in a 1 ml anaerobic medium. The samples were looked for the growth of Streptococcus, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum blood agar, kanamycin blood agar, and kanamycin-vancomycin blood agar was used as a bacterial culture media in the study.
The formula used to calculate colonies was:
Colony-forming units/milliliter = (number of colonies × dilution factor)/volume of culture plate.
The samples were obtained in the following order:
- Preoperative (before antibiotic regimen)
- One day after implant placement
- After suture removal
- Two weeks after implant placement
- At the time of abutment attachment
- Two days after abutment attachment
- Day of prosthesis placement
- Two days after prosthesis placement
- 1 month follow-up
- 2 months follow-up.
Samples obtained from the delayed group were labeled from D1 to D10 and from the immediate group were labeled from I1 to I10.
| Results|| |
The samples collected were looked for pathogenic microorganisms: Streptococcus, A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, and F. nucleatum. The values of the microbiological analysis of both the groups (immediate and delayed) are given in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. Specific statistical tests were used for analyzing the data and for obtaining the results.
|Table 1: Number of organisms in colony forming unit per millilitre in Group 1|
Click here to view
|Table 2: Number of organisms in colony forming unit per millilitre in Group II|
Click here to view
[Table 3] shows the mean percentage of colonies different organisms in Group I and Group II. In both, the group's Streptococci were seen in the higher titer as compared to P. gingivalis, Fusobacterium, P. intermedia, and A. Actinomycetemcomitans, which shows comparatively low titer. A comparison of the mean concentration of different organisms in the immediate implant shows a statistically significant result (Kruskal–Wallis, P < 0.001). Moreover, similarly, when the mean concentration of different organisms was observed in the delayed implant group, it was also statistically significant (Kruskal–Wallis, P < 0.001). However, when both the groups were compared to each other, the result was insignificant. These results show that there is no significant difference in the microflora of the immediate implant and delayed implants.
| Discussion|| |
Many factors are responsible for the success of the implant. One of the most critical factors responsible for the success of the implant is osseointegration. Early implant failure occurs due to inadequate osseointegration, and late failure is due to an inability to maintain osseointegration. The reason for early failures includes premature loading of the implant, surgical trauma, and bacterial infection. Late failures occur after prosthesis placement. Late failures occur due to many reasons. One primary reason is periimplantitis. Various studies have shown the microflora associated with dental implants is the same as that of the tooth in a healthy mouth. Quirynen et al. in their research compared the plaque composition on the implants of fully edentulous patients with that of partially edentulous patients and concluded that the presence of natural teeth in the mouth influences the microflora around the implant.
Similarly, bacteria associated with failing implants have also been studied. Several studies have shown that microflora associated with a failing implant is similar to that of periodontal disease., Thus, subjects with periodontal disease are at significant risk for implant failure. Most of the microbial studies associated with implants are associated with the disease state of the periodontium. We conducted a study in which we evaluated the bacteriology associated with a peri-implant sulcus of patients with immediate and delayed implants without periodontal disease.
The samples from ten different phases of the treatment were analyzed. The results showed that In both groups, Streptococci were seen in the higher titer as compared to P. gingivalis, Fusobacterium, P. intermedia, and A. actinomycetemcomitans, which shows comparatively low titer. This can be attributed to the fact that Streptococcus is the normal commensal of the mouth, while other microorganisms are found in the pathologic state. Therefore, the titers of these cocci cells are more. The study also shows that microorganisms remain the same in healthy patients throughout the treatment process. Our results were in accordance with Quirynen et al. who reported 65.3% cocci compared to other bacteria. P. gingivalis (21.4%–24%) and F. nucleatum (24.7%) was another predominant bacteria that were observed and are associated with periodontitis. Similar results were obtained by Mombelli et al. in their study in healthy patients with implants. Cortelli et al. in his research, found that P. gingivalis to be 12% and P. intermedia to be 22% in a healthy patient with implants that contradict our results as the value of P. intermedia in our study was very less ranging 3.8%–4.9% in Group 1 and Group 2. However in the same study, the number of P. gingivalis increased in mucositis and periimplantitis condition. This could be explained by the study conducted by Silverstein et al. according to them, the microflora around the implant keeps on changing, and the same microorganism responsible for periodontitis causes peri-implantitis. Therefore, the periodontium around implant must be continuously monitored after implant placement.
Albertini et al., in their study, concluded that the implant surface might be colonized with pathogens different from periodontal bacteria. Opportunistic pathogens such as P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and C. albicans may be associated with implant failure.
Our study shows an insignificant difference between microflora associated with immediate and delayed implants. The results were in accordance with the study conducted by Hiremath et al. she concluded that the mode of implant placement does not alter the peri-implant microflora. Organisms observed preoperatively were present during the entire phase of the treatment.
Canullo et al. analyzed the bacterial microflora inside the implant connection and in the peri-implant sulcus fluid of healthy implants after 5 years of functional loading. Their results showed that the implant connection gets contaminated after 5 years of the treatment. They also observed that the connection design influences bacterial activity levels, especially inside the implant connection.
| Conclusion|| |
Thus, we conclude that implant mode of placement, delayed or immediate placement does not alter the flora of the oral cavity. Organisms present remain the same in all the phase of the treatment. To prevent the disease, one must continuously monitor the implant with the increasing age changes the microflora is continually evolving in the oral cavity. The periodontal health should be assessed before the placement of the implant, followed by follow-ups after a set period for a better prognosis.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Han A, Tsoi JK, Rodrigues FP, Leprince JG, Palin WM. Bacterial adhesion mechanisms on dental implant surfaces and the influencing factors. Int J Adhes Adhes 2016;69:58-71.
Qian J, Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Reasons for marginal bone loss around oral implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:792-807.
Pokrowiecki R, Mielczarek A, Zaręba T, Tyski S. Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: Where are we now? Ther Clin Risk Manag 2017;13:1529-42.
Rakic M, Grusovin MG, Canullo L. The microbiologic profile associated with peri-implantitis in humans: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:359-68.
Hashim D, Cionca N. A comprehensive review of peri-implantitis risk factors. Curr Oral Health Rep 2020;7:262-73.
Cortelli SC, Cortelli JR, Romeiro RL, Costa FO, Aquino DR, Orzechowski PR, et al
. Frequency of periodontal pathogens in equivalent peri-implant and periodontal clinical statuses. Arch Oral Biol 2013;58:67-74.
Buddula A. Bacteria and dental implants: A review. J Dent Implants 2013;3:58.
Shahabouee M, Rismanchian M, Yaghini J, Babashahi A, Badrian H, Goroohi H. Microflora around teeth and dental implants. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9:215-20.
Quirynen M, Listgarten MA. Distribution of bacterial morphotypes around natural teeth and titanium implants ad modum Brånemark. Clin Oral Implants Res 1990;1:8-12.
Albertini M, López-Cerero L, O'Sullivan MG, Chereguini CF, Ballesta S, Ríos V, et al
. Assessment of periodontal and opportunistic flora in patients with peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:937-41.
Mombelli A, van Oosten MA, Schurch E Jr, Land NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987;2:145-51.
Silverstein LH, Kurtzman D, Garnick JJ, Schuster GS, Steflik DE, Moskowitz ME. The microbiota of the peri-implant region in health and disease. Implant Dent 1994;3:195.
Hiremath KG, Patil VN, Ruttonji Z, Kusugal P, Sushma KM, Astagi P. A comparative evaluation of changes in microbial flora in delayed and immediate placed implants: An in vivo
study. J Dent Implants 2020;10:16.
Canullo L, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Soldini C, Mazzocco F, Penarrocha M, Covani U. Microbiological assessment of the implant-abutment interface in different connections: Cross-sectional study after 5 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:426-34.
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]