Antibacterial bioglass in dental implants: a canine clinical study

• Published in: European journal of public health Vol. 31; no. Supplement_2
• Main Authors: Gavinho, Silvia, Graca, Manuel, Prezas, Pedro, Borges, João, Silva, Jorge, Pires, Eduardo, Armes, Henrique, Coucelo, Jose
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Oxford University Press 03-08-2021; Oxford Publishing Limited (England)
• Subjects: Artificial limbs; Bioglass; Biomaterials; Biomedical materials; Bone imaging; Bone implants; Computed tomography; Cytotoxicity; Dental crowns; Dental implants; Dental materials; Dental prosthetics; Disease control; Disease prevention; Fibrosis; Maxilla; Osseointegration; Osteolysis; Property; Prostheses; Public health; Regeneration; Regeneration (physiology); Rejection; Silver nitrate; Sodium carbonate; Tissue engineering; Transplants & implants; periimplantitis; antibacterial agent; bioglass
• ISSN: 1101-1262; 1464-360X
• DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckab120.006

Background
Peri-implantitis is considered the most challenging biological complication in implantology, as untreated disease can progress and result in implant loss. Therefore, disease prevention is crucial in daily clinical practice. It has been reported that the use of bioactive glass, as an implant coating, can stimulate tissue integration and accelerate tissue regeneration. Besides these properties, it is possible to promote bacterial activity by inserting silver into the bioglass
Methods
Bioglass with composition 45S5 was synthesised by the fusion method, replacing the amount of Na2CO3 by AgNO3 (BG 2% wt). The implants were resealed by the CoBlast® technique. Clinical cases with pathology of the mandible/maxilla were selected and implants dimensioned for the canine bone structure were applied.
Results
Three months after implantation, imaging exams, namely CT scans, showed no signs of early rejection by septic or cytotoxic loss. No decrease or loss of peri-implant bone was observed. In all cases the implants remained without signs of instability, and with sufficient support for the application of the exo-prosthesis or dental crown. The results of histological analysis showed no signs of infection or osteolysis. The zone of peri-implant fibrosis was not observable in the samples, showing a good evolution in implant osteointegration.
Conclusions
The results show promising evidences for the use of this biomaterial as a coating, since aseptic rejection, later on, and that related to the shape and biomaterials used in the implant's design, usually begins during the first 3 months.