Next Article in Journal
Transfoveal Micropulse Laser Treatment of Central Serous Chorioretinopathy within Six Months of Disease Onset
Next Article in Special Issue
Are Oral Implants the Same As Teeth?
Previous Article in Journal
The Changing Landscape of Acute Kidney Injury in Pregnancy from an Obstetrics Perspective
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Tapered Abutments on Marginal Bone Level: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Open AccessArticle

The Effect of In Vitro Electrolytic Cleaning on Biofilm-Contaminated Implant Surfaces

1
Department of Prosthodontics, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Department of Trauma, Hand & Reconstructive Surgery, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
3
Private Practice, and Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(9), 1397; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8091397
Received: 15 August 2019 / Revised: 29 August 2019 / Accepted: 3 September 2019 / Published: 6 September 2019
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: dental implant; biofilm; infection; perio-prosthetic joint infection; periimplantitis; electrolytic cleaning dental implant; biofilm; infection; perio-prosthetic joint infection; periimplantitis; electrolytic cleaning
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Ratka, C.; Weigl, P.; Henrich, D.; Koch, F.; Schlee, M.; Zipprich, H. The Effect of In Vitro Electrolytic Cleaning on Biofilm-Contaminated Implant Surfaces. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1397.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map

1
Back to TopTop