Objectives: The present randomized clinical trial assesses the six-month outcomes following surgical regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: 24 patients with 24 implants suffering from peri-implantitis with any type of bone defect were randomly treated by EC or PEC. Bone defects were augmented with a mixture of natural bone mineral and autogenous bone and left for submerged healing. The distance from implant shoulder to bone was assessed at six defined points at baseline (T0) and after six months at uncovering surgery (T1) by periodontal probe and standardized x-rays. Results: One implant had to be removed at T1 because of reinfection and other obstacles. None of the other implants showed signs of inflammation. Bone gain was 2.71 ± 1.70 mm for EC and 2.81 ± 2.15 mm for PEC. No statistically significant difference between EC and PEC was detected. Significant clinical bone fill was observed for all 24 implants. Complete regeneration of bone was achieved in 12 implants. Defect morphology impacted the amount of regeneration. Conclusion: EC needs no further mechanical cleaning by powder spray. Complete re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis cases is possible.

Purpose: Bacterial biofilms are a major problem in the treatment of infected dental and orthopedic implants. The purpose of this study is to investigate the cleaning effect of an electrolytic approach (EC) compared to a powder-spray system (PSS) on titanium surfaces. Materials and Methods: The tested implants (different surfaces and alloys) were collated into six groups and treated ether with EC or PSS. After a mature biofilm was established, the implants were treated, immersed in a nutritional solution, and streaked on Columbia agar. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were counted after breeding and testing (EC), and control (PSS) groups were compared using a paired sample t-test. Results: No bacterial growth was observed in the EC groups. After thinning to 1:1,000,000, 258.1 ± 19.9 (group 2), 264.4 ± 36.5 (group 4), and 245.3 ± 40.7 (group 6) CFUs could be counted in the PSS groups. The difference between the electrolytic approach (test groups 1, 3, and 5) and PSS (control groups 2, 4, and 6) was statistically extremely significant (p-value < 2.2 × 10⁻¹⁶). Conclusion: Only EC inactivated the bacterial biofilm, and PSS left reproducible bacteria behind. Within the limits of this in vitro test, clinical relevance could be demonstrated.

Purpose: The aim of this study is to record material- and surface-dependent heat dissipation during the process of inserting implants into native animal bone. Materials and Methods: Implants made of titanium and zirconium that were identical in macrodesign were inserted under controlled conditions into a bovine rib tempered to 37 °C. The resulting surface temperature was measured on two bone windows by an infrared camera. The results of the six experimental groups, ceramic machined (1), sandblasted (2), and sandblasted and acid-etched surfaces (3) versus titanium implants with the corresponding surfaces (4, 5, and 6) were statistically tested. Results: The average temperature increase, 3 mm subcrestally at ceramic implants, differed with high statistical significance (p = 7.163 × 10⁻⁹, resulting from group-adjusted linear mixed-effects model) from titanium. The surface texture of ceramic implants shows a statistical difference between group 3 (15.44 ± 3.63 °C) and group 1 (19.94 ± 3.28 °C) or group 2 (19.39 ± 5.73 °C) surfaces. Within the titanium implants, the temperature changes were similar for all surfaces. Conclusion: Within the limits of an in vitro study, the high temperature rises at ceramic versus titanium implants should be limited by a very slow insertion velocity.

There was an error in the original article