PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases.
METHODS: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with H(2)O(2). Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically.
RESULTS: The untreated implants and H(2)O(2)-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site.
CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.