The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis
Identifieur interne : 005335 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 005334; suivant : 005336The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis
Auteurs : Jan Cosyn ; Louis Van Aelst ; Bruno Collaert ; G. Rutger Persson ; Hugo De BruynSource :
- Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research [ 1523-0899 ] ; 2011-12.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Abutment screws, Actinomyces, Actinomycetemcomitans, Aggregatibacter, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Atcc, Aureus, Bacterial detection frequencies, Bacterial leakage, Bacterial levels, Buccalis, Campylobacter, Capnocytophaga, Checkerboard, Checkerboard hybridization, Clin, Clin periodontol, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical signs, Coronal restorations, Cotton pellet, Detection frequency, Fusobacterium, Gingivalis, High prevalence, Hybridization, Implant, Interface, Internal compartments, Internal components, Internal implant, Leakage, Lower numbers, Microbial, Microbial leakage, Microbial link, Nucleatum, Numerous species, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofac implants, Pellet, Periodonticum, Persson, Polymorphum, Present study, Prevotella, Renvert, Restorative margin, Screw access holes, Showae, Streptococcus, Sulcus, Suprastructure, Suprastructure compartments, Suprastructure components, Titanium implants, Treponema, Vivo studies, Vivo study.
- Teeft :
- Abutment, Abutment screw, Abutment screws, Actinomyces, Actinomycetemcomitans, Aggregatibacter, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Atcc, Aureus, Bacterial detection frequencies, Bacterial leakage, Bacterial levels, Buccalis, Campylobacter, Capnocytophaga, Checkerboard, Checkerboard hybridization, Clin, Clin periodontol, Clinical implant dentistry, Clinical signs, Coronal restorations, Cotton pellet, Detection frequency, Fusobacterium, Gingivalis, High prevalence, Hybridization, Implant, Interface, Internal compartments, Internal components, Internal implant, Leakage, Lower numbers, Microbial, Microbial leakage, Microbial link, Nucleatum, Numerous species, Oral implantology, Oral maxillofac implants, Pellet, Periodonticum, Persson, Polymorphum, Present study, Prevotella, Renvert, Restorative margin, Screw access holes, Showae, Streptococcus, Sulcus, Suprastructure, Suprastructure compartments, Suprastructure components, Titanium implants, Treponema, Vivo studies, Vivo study.
Abstract
Purpose: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FCLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Cosyn, Jan" sort="Cosyn, Jan" uniqKey="Cosyn J" first="Jan" last="Cosyn">Jan Cosyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Doctor assistant,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jan.cosyn@ugent.be</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Aelst, Louis" sort="Van Aelst, Louis" uniqKey="Van Aelst L" first="Louis" last="Van Aelst">Louis Van Aelst</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>assistant,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, Bruno" sort="Collaert, Bruno" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="Bruno" last="Collaert">Bruno Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Persson, G Rutger" sort="Persson, G Rutger" uniqKey="Persson G" first="G. Rutger" last="Persson">G. Rutger Persson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, Hugo" sort="De Bruyn, Hugo" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="Hugo" last="De Bruyn">Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">005335</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">005335</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title><author><name sortKey="Cosyn, Jan" sort="Cosyn, Jan" uniqKey="Cosyn J" first="Jan" last="Cosyn">Jan Cosyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Doctor assistant,</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: jan.cosyn@ugent.be</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Van Aelst, Louis" sort="Van Aelst, Louis" uniqKey="Van Aelst L" first="Louis" last="Van Aelst">Louis Van Aelst</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>assistant,</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Collaert, Bruno" sort="Collaert, Bruno" uniqKey="Collaert B" first="Bruno" last="Collaert">Bruno Collaert</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Persson, G Rutger" sort="Persson, G Rutger" uniqKey="Persson G" first="G. Rutger" last="Persson">G. Rutger Persson</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="De Bruyn, Hugo" sort="De Bruyn, Hugo" uniqKey="De Bruyn H" first="Hugo" last="De Bruyn">Hugo De Bruyn</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="286">286</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="295">295</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">10</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12">2011-12</date></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1523-0899</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Actinomyces</term><term>Actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Aggregatibacter</term><term>Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Atcc</term><term>Aureus</term><term>Bacterial detection frequencies</term><term>Bacterial leakage</term><term>Bacterial levels</term><term>Buccalis</term><term>Campylobacter</term><term>Capnocytophaga</term><term>Checkerboard</term><term>Checkerboard hybridization</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin periodontol</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical signs</term><term>Coronal restorations</term><term>Cotton pellet</term><term>Detection frequency</term><term>Fusobacterium</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>High prevalence</term><term>Hybridization</term><term>Implant</term><term>Interface</term><term>Internal compartments</term><term>Internal components</term><term>Internal implant</term><term>Leakage</term><term>Lower numbers</term><term>Microbial</term><term>Microbial leakage</term><term>Microbial link</term><term>Nucleatum</term><term>Numerous species</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Pellet</term><term>Periodonticum</term><term>Persson</term><term>Polymorphum</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prevotella</term><term>Renvert</term><term>Restorative margin</term><term>Screw access holes</term><term>Showae</term><term>Streptococcus</term><term>Sulcus</term><term>Suprastructure</term><term>Suprastructure compartments</term><term>Suprastructure components</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Treponema</term><term>Vivo studies</term><term>Vivo study</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Abutment</term><term>Abutment screw</term><term>Abutment screws</term><term>Actinomyces</term><term>Actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Aggregatibacter</term><term>Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans</term><term>Atcc</term><term>Aureus</term><term>Bacterial detection frequencies</term><term>Bacterial leakage</term><term>Bacterial levels</term><term>Buccalis</term><term>Campylobacter</term><term>Capnocytophaga</term><term>Checkerboard</term><term>Checkerboard hybridization</term><term>Clin</term><term>Clin periodontol</term><term>Clinical implant dentistry</term><term>Clinical signs</term><term>Coronal restorations</term><term>Cotton pellet</term><term>Detection frequency</term><term>Fusobacterium</term><term>Gingivalis</term><term>High prevalence</term><term>Hybridization</term><term>Implant</term><term>Interface</term><term>Internal compartments</term><term>Internal components</term><term>Internal implant</term><term>Leakage</term><term>Lower numbers</term><term>Microbial</term><term>Microbial leakage</term><term>Microbial link</term><term>Nucleatum</term><term>Numerous species</term><term>Oral implantology</term><term>Oral maxillofac implants</term><term>Pellet</term><term>Periodonticum</term><term>Persson</term><term>Polymorphum</term><term>Present study</term><term>Prevotella</term><term>Renvert</term><term>Restorative margin</term><term>Screw access holes</term><term>Showae</term><term>Streptococcus</term><term>Sulcus</term><term>Suprastructure</term><term>Suprastructure compartments</term><term>Suprastructure components</term><term>Titanium implants</term><term>Treponema</term><term>Vivo studies</term><term>Vivo study</term></keywords></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Purpose: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>sulcus</json:string><json:string>atcc</json:string><json:string>implant</json:string><json:string>nucleatum</json:string><json:string>abutment</json:string><json:string>suprastructure</json:string><json:string>abutment screw</json:string><json:string>fusobacterium</json:string><json:string>pellet</json:string><json:string>internal implant</json:string><json:string>streptococcus</json:string><json:string>clin</json:string><json:string>actinomycetemcomitans</json:string><json:string>capnocytophaga</json:string><json:string>campylobacter</json:string><json:string>prevotella</json:string><json:string>present study</json:string><json:string>actinomyces</json:string><json:string>suprastructure components</json:string><json:string>persson</json:string><json:string>checkerboard</json:string><json:string>aureus</json:string><json:string>aggregatibacter</json:string><json:string>bacterial leakage</json:string><json:string>treponema</json:string><json:string>leakage</json:string><json:string>hybridization</json:string><json:string>renvert</json:string><json:string>bacterial levels</json:string><json:string>periodonticum</json:string><json:string>gingivalis</json:string><json:string>buccalis</json:string><json:string>showae</json:string><json:string>polymorphum</json:string><json:string>clinical signs</json:string><json:string>microbial</json:string><json:string>cotton pellet</json:string><json:string>internal components</json:string><json:string>clin periodontol</json:string><json:string>oral maxillofac implants</json:string><json:string>screw access holes</json:string><json:string>clinical implant dentistry</json:string><json:string>vivo study</json:string><json:string>checkerboard hybridization</json:string><json:string>titanium implants</json:string><json:string>restorative margin</json:string><json:string>bacterial detection frequencies</json:string><json:string>suprastructure compartments</json:string><json:string>interface</json:string><json:string>oral implantology</json:string><json:string>abutment screws</json:string><json:string>numerous species</json:string><json:string>high prevalence</json:string><json:string>internal compartments</json:string><json:string>detection frequency</json:string><json:string>lower numbers</json:string><json:string>microbial leakage</json:string><json:string>coronal restorations</json:string><json:string>microbial link</json:string><json:string>aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans</json:string><json:string>vivo studies</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Jan Cosyn DDS, MSc, PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>Doctor assistant,</json:string><json:string>E-mail: jan.cosyn@ugent.be</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Louis Van Aelst DDS</name><affiliations><json:string>assistant,</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Bruno Collaert DDS MSc PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>G. Rutger Persson DDS MSc PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Hugo De Bruyn DDS MSc PhD</name><affiliations><json:string>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>abutment‐prosthesis interface</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>contamination</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>dental implant</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>implant‐abutment interface</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>leakage</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>CID220</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/WNG-KJGV5M66-Q</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Purpose: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.215</score><pdfWordCount>4339</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>32378</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>10</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>585 x 783 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>73</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>550</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>5</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title><pmid><json:string>19673920</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</json:string></doi><issn><json:string>1523-0899</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1708-8208</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>CID</json:string></publisherId><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>286</first><last>295</last><total>10</total></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2011</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>Division of Oral Microbiology</json:string><json:string>Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</json:string><json:string>Forsyth Institute, Boston, MA</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland</json:string><json:string>Roche Diagnostics</json:string><json:string>Ghent University</json:string><json:string>University of Berne</json:string><json:string>Related Research, Volume</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Reprint</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology and Oral</json:string><json:string>Department of Periodontology</json:string><json:string>University of Ghent</json:string><json:string>University of Bern, Switzerland</json:string><json:string>American Type Culture Collection</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>L. Matthijs</json:string><json:string>S. Vandeweghe</json:string><json:string>Jan Cosyn</json:string><json:string>Gerber</json:string><json:string>Hugo De Bruyn</json:string><json:string>Katsoulis</json:string><json:string>Socransky</json:string><json:string>Aelst</json:string><json:string>Louis Van Aelst</json:string><json:string>Implantology</json:string><json:string>P. Bouvry</json:string><json:string>Renvert</json:string><json:string>Ada Products</json:string><json:string>La Jolla</json:string><json:string>Bruno Collaert</json:string><json:string>S. Vervaeke</json:string><json:string>G. Rutger</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>IL</json:string><json:string>Germany</json:string><json:string>Ghent</json:string><json:string>Milwaukee</json:string><json:string>Mannheim</json:string><json:string>Eppendorf</json:string><json:string>USA</json:string><json:string>Gothenburg</json:string><json:string>Chicago</json:string><json:string>MA</json:string><json:string>WI</json:string><json:string>Cambridge</json:string><json:string>Sweden</json:string><json:string>Belgium</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/WNG-KJGV5M66-Q</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - dentistry, oral surgery & medicine</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - health sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - dentistry</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - General Dentistry</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Dentistry</json:string><json:string>3 - Oral Surgery</json:string></scopus></categories><publicationDate>2011</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x</json:string></doi><id>A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main">The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><licence>© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</licence></availability><date type="published" when="2011-12"></date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content-type" subtype="article" source="article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</note><note type="publication-type" subtype="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="article"><analytic><title level="a" type="main">The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title><title level="a" type="short">Peri‐Implant Sulcus and Internal Components</title><author xml:id="author-0000" role="corresp"><persName><forename type="first">Jan</forename><surname>Cosyn</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS, MSc, PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>Doctor assistant,</affiliation><affiliation>Dr. Jan Cosyn, University of Ghent, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, De Pintelaan 185, B‐9000 Ghent, Belgium; e‐mail: jan.cosyn@ugent.be</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Louis</forename><surname>Van Aelst</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS</roleName></persName><affiliation>assistant,</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0002"><persName><forename type="first">Bruno</forename><surname>Collaert</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS MSc PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0003"><persName><forename type="first">G. Rutger</forename><surname>Persson</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS MSc PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA<address><country key="US"></country></address></affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0004"><persName><forename type="first">Hugo</forename><surname>De Bruyn</surname><roleName type="degree">DDS MSc PhD</roleName></persName><affiliation>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;<address><country key="BE"></country></address></affiliation></author><idno type="istex">A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-KJGV5M66-Q</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x</idno><idno type="unit">CID220</idno><idno type="toTypesetVersion">file:CID.CID220.pdf</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j" type="main">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title><title level="j" type="alt">CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH</title><idno type="pISSN">1523-0899</idno><idno type="eISSN">1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</idno><idno type="book-part-DOI">10.1111/cid.2011.13.issue-4</idno><idno type="product">CID</idno><idno type="publisherDivision">ST</idno><imprint><biblScope unit="vol">13</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="286">286</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="295">295</biblScope><biblScope unit="page-count">10</biblScope><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2011-12"></date></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><abstract xml:lang="en" style="main"><head>ABSTRACT</head><p><hi rend="bold">Purpose:</hi> A recent <hi rend="italic">in vivo</hi> study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Material and Methods:</hi> Fifty‐eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw‐retained full‐arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra‐coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Results:</hi> The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri‐implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri‐implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking.</p><p><hi rend="bold">Conclusions:</hi> Intra‐coronal compartments of screw‐retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri‐implant sulcus via the implant‐abutment interface and abutment‐prosthesis interface.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords xml:lang="en"><term xml:id="k1">abutment‐prosthesis interface</term><term xml:id="k2">contamination</term><term xml:id="k3">dental implant</term><term xml:id="k4">implant‐abutment interface</term><term xml:id="k5">leakage</term></keywords><keywords rend="tocHeading1"><term>ARTICLES</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en"></language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</doi><issn type="print">1523-0899</issn><issn type="electronic">1708-8208</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="CID"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY RELATED RESEARCH">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="12104"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/cid.2011.13.issue-4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="13">13</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="4">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2011-12">December 2011</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="5" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="CID220"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="10"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">ARTICLES</title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2009-08-05"></event><event type="publishedOnlineAcceptedOrEarlyUnpaginated" date="2009-08-05"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.10 mode:FullText" date="2011-11-01"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2011-11-01"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-15"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-16"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="286">286</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="295">295</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Dr. Jan Cosyn, University of Ghent, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, De Pintelaan 185, B‐9000 Ghent, Belgium; e‐mail: <email>jan.cosyn@ugent.be</email></correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:CID.CID220.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="1"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="5"></count><count type="formulaTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="32"></count><count type="wordTotal" number="5485"></count><count type="linksPubMed" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="0"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title><title type="shortAuthors">Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Volume *, Number *, 2009</title><title type="short">Peri‐Implant Sulcus and Internal Components</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Jan</givenNames><familyName>Cosyn</familyName><degrees>DDS, MSc, PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Louis</givenNames><familyName>Van Aelst</familyName><degrees>DDS</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr3" affiliationRef="#a3"><personName><givenNames>Bruno</givenNames><familyName>Collaert</familyName><degrees>DDS MSc PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr4" affiliationRef="#a4"><personName><givenNames>G. Rutger</givenNames><familyName>Persson</familyName><degrees>DDS MSc PhD</degrees></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr5" affiliationRef="#a5"><personName><givenNames>Hugo</givenNames><familyName>De Bruyn</familyName><degrees>DDS MSc PhD</degrees></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Doctor assistant,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2"><unparsedAffiliation>assistant,</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a5" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a3" countryCode="BE"><unparsedAffiliation>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a4" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">abutment‐prosthesis interface</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">contamination</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">dental implant</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">implant‐abutment interface</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">leakage</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">ABSTRACT</title><p><b>Purpose:</b> A recent <i>in vivo</i> study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.</p><p><b>Material and Methods:</b> Fifty‐eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw‐retained full‐arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra‐coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri‐implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri‐implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking.</p><p><b>Conclusions:</b> Intra‐coronal compartments of screw‐retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri‐implant sulcus via the implant‐abutment interface and abutment‐prosthesis interface.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Peri‐Implant Sulcus and Internal Components</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Jan</namePart><namePart type="family">Cosyn</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS, MSc, PhD</namePart><affiliation>Doctor assistant,</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: jan.cosyn@ugent.be</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Louis</namePart><namePart type="family">Van Aelst</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS</namePart><affiliation>assistant,</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Bruno</namePart><namePart type="family">Collaert</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS MSc PhD</namePart><affiliation>associate professor and private practice, periodontology and oral implantology, Groenveldstraat 65, Heverlee, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">G. Rutger</namePart><namePart type="family">Persson</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS MSc PhD</namePart><affiliation>professor, Division of Oral Microbiology, University of Berne, Department of Periodontology, Berne, Switzerland, and professor, Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Hugo</namePart><namePart type="family">De Bruyn</namePart><namePart type="termsOfAddress">DDS MSc PhD</namePart><affiliation>professor and chairman, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium;</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-6N5SZHKN-D">article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2011-12</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><extent unit="figures">1</extent><extent unit="tables">5</extent><extent unit="formulas">0</extent><extent unit="references">32</extent><extent unit="linksCrossRef">0</extent><extent unit="words">5485</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Purpose: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant‐abutment interface, abutment‐prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri‐implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species.</abstract><abstract>Material and Methods: Fifty‐eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw‐retained full‐arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra‐coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated.</abstract><abstract>Results: The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri‐implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri‐implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri‐implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking.</abstract><abstract>Conclusions: Intra‐coronal compartments of screw‐retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri‐implant sulcus via the implant‐abutment interface and abutment‐prosthesis interface.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>abutment‐prosthesis interface</topic><topic>contamination</topic><topic>dental implant</topic><topic>implant‐abutment interface</topic><topic>leakage</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1523-0899</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1708-8208</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">CID</identifier><part><date>2011</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>13</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>286</start><end>295</end><total>10</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/WNG-KJGV5M66-Q</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00220.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">CID220</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-L0C46X92-X">wiley</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 005335 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 005335 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:A6613CC29E45D5D1F86D2CECF93DDD7CD0E954FC
|texte= The Peri‐Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |