The presence of a microgap along an implant–abutment connection (IAC) is considered the main disadvantage of two-piece implant systems. Its existence may lead to mechanical and biological complications. Different IAC designs have been developed to minimise microleakage through the microgap and to increase the stability of prosthodontic abutments. Furthermore, different sealing materials have appeared on the market to seal the gap at the IAC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy and permeability of different materials designed to seal the microgap, and their behaviour in conical and straight types of internal IACs. One hundred dental implants with original prosthodontic abutments were divided into two groups of fifty implants according to the type of IAC. Three different sealing materials (GapSeal, Flow.sil, and Oxysafe gel) were applied in the test subgroups. The contamination of implant–abutment assemblies was performed by a joint suspension containing Candida albicans and Staphylococcus aureus. It was concluded that the IAC type had no significant influence on microleakage regarding microbial infection. No significant difference was found between the various sealing agents. Only one sealing agent (GapSeal) was found to significantly prevent microleakage. A complete hermetic seal was not achieved with any of the sealing agents tested in this study.

The microenvironment of the oral cavity is altered when an implant, a biocompatible foreign body, is inserted into the mouth. Bacteria settle in the tissues in and around the implant due to the passage of microorganisms through the microgap at the connection of the implant and prosthetic abutment. To prevent colonization of the implant by microorganisms, one idea is to use sealing and antimicrobial materials to decontaminate the implant–abutment interface and close the microgap. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy and permeability of different types of sealing materials at the implant–abutment interface, under static conditions. Three different sealing material (GapSeal gel, Oxysafe gel and Flow.sil) were used for sealing the implant–abutment interfaces in 60 titanium dental implants, which were first contaminated with a solution containing Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans for 14 days under an aerobic condition. Results showed that a complete seal against bacterial infection was not formed at the implant–abutment interface, while for fungal infections, only GapSeal material helped to prevent microleakage. Findings of this in vitro study reported that application of sealing material before abutment connection may reduce peri-implant bacterial and fungal population compared with the interface without sealing material.

Background: Implant-surface decontamination is required before reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis, but no protocol has demonstrated consistent clinical superiority. Objective: To compare the immediate reduction in recoverable bacterial target DNA after electrolytic cleaning and 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX). Materials and Methods: Forty nonsmoking patients with peri-implantitis (one implant per patient) were randomized to GalvoSurge (n = 20) or CHX (n = 20). Microbiological samples were collected from the exposed implant surface before and immediately after the assigned decontamination protocol and standardized terminal sterile-saline irrigation. Five periodontal pathogens were assessed using semiquantitative DNA-based real-time PCR (qPCR). Laboratory categories were converted to an exploratory summed ordinal score (range 0–15). A post hoc cumulative logit model compared post-treatment scores between groups while adjusting for the pretreatment score. Results: Pretreatment scores were higher in the GalvoSurge group (median 4.5, IQR 3.0–6.0) than in the CHX group (median 3.0, IQR 2.75–4.0; p = 0.043). After baseline adjustment, GalvoSurge was associated with lower post-treatment scores (adjusted common odds ratio for a higher score, 0.047; 95% profile-likelihood CI, 0.009–0.202; p < 0.001). Unadjusted analyses also favored GalvoSurge for absolute reduction (median 4.0 vs. 1.0), relative reduction (83.3% vs. 26.7%), and post-treatment score (median 1.0 vs. 2.0; all p < 0.001). Complete target non-detection occurred in 7/20 (35.0%) and 2/20 (10.0%) patients, respectively (Fisher’s exact p = 0.127). Conclusions: In this exploratory randomized pilot sample, GalvoSurge was associated with a greater immediate reduction in recoverable bacterial target DNA than CHX after adjustment for pretreatment score. DNA-based qPCR does not distinguish viable from non-viable bacteria; therefore, the findings do not establish bacterial killing, sterility, or long-term clinical superiority.

Background/Objectives: Alveolar bone augmentation before implant placement is a safe and effective treatment option for the reconstruction of a deficient alveolar ridge. According to recent research, permanent teeth have been used as bone graft materials, with studies confirming their clinical and histological results. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of alveolar ridge augmentation with autogenous tooth roots and staged implant placement, and peri-implant tissue stability in augmented sites. Methods: A total of 20 augmentations with autogenous tooth roots on mandibular alveolar ridges in 15 patients were performed. After 6 months, the ridge width (RWa) and ridge width gain (RWg) were measured. Titanium dental implants were placed in grafted sites and loaded 10 weeks after placement. Clinical parameters (bleeding on probing—BOP; probing depth—PD; mucosal recession—MR; and clinical attachment level—CAL) were assessed 2 months (T1), 3 years (T2), and 5 years (T3) after implant loading. Results: The mean RWa was 6.71 ± 0.74 mm, and the RWg was 3.15 ± 0.54 mm, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed for clinical parameters (BOP, PD, MR, and CAL) among different time points (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Autogenous tooth roots represent a viable solution for alveolar ridge augmentation and implant placement, providing a stable environment for peri implant tissues.