==== Front Int J Implant Dent Int J Implant Dent International Journal of Implant Dentistry 2198-4034 Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg 278 10.1186/s40729-020-00278-8 Research Residual decontamination chemical agents negatively affect adhesion and proliferation of osteoblast-like cells on implant surface Balderrama Ísis de Fátima if.balderrama@unesp.br 12 Cardoso Matheus Völz 2 Stuani Vitor Toledo 2 Oliveira Rodrigo Cardoso 3 Matos Adriana Arruda 3 Greghi Sebastião Luiz Aguiar 2 Sant’Ana Adriana Campos Passanezi 2 1 grid.410543.70000 0001 2188 478XDepartment of Diagnosis and Surgery, Araraquara School of Dentistry, Sao Paulo State University, Araraquara, Sao Paulo Brazil 2 grid.11899.380000 0004 1937 0722Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Bauru, Sao Paulo Brazil 3 grid.11899.380000 0004 1937 0722Department of Biological Science, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Bauru, Sao Paulo Brazil 17 12 2020 17 12 2020 12 2020 6 844 7 2020 6 11 2020 © The Author(s) 2020Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.Purpose To investigate the influence of implant surface decontaminated and uncontaminated on osteoblast-like cell adhesion and proliferation Materials and methods Commercially available implants of different brands and surface characteristics were selected: Biomet 3i® Nanotite (NT) and Osseotite (OT), Straumann® SLActive (SLA), and Neodent® Acqua Drive (ACQ) and Neoporos Drive CM (CM). Physical and chemical properties of the implants were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS), and wettability analysis (WETT). Implants were previously contaminated with Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans strains; after that, samples were decontaminated by different chemical methods. Decontaminated (test group; n = 15/type of implant) and uncontaminated (control group; n = 5/type of implant) samples were analyzed according to the number of human osteoblastic osteosarcoma cells (Saos-2) adhered on the implant surface after 24 h and 72 h in SEM images. Results ACQ was found to be highly hydrophilic, and NT was the most hydrophobic implant. Increased variation of Saos-2 cell adhesion and proliferation were observed on all test and control groups. Controversially, at the proliferation analysis in 72 h, CM implant was the only implant that showed no significant difference between test and group (p = 0.2833; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). NT implants showed the greater value of cell proliferation when compared with all types of implant surface (p = 0.0002; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). Conclusions These findings suggest that decontaminated surfaces were able to impair the counting of osteoblast-like cell adhesion and proliferation. Keywords Dental implantsDecontaminationOsteoblast-like cellsImplant surfacePeri-implantitisissue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2020 ==== Body Introduction Osseointegration is defined as a direct contact between vital bone and implant surface at optical microscopy level [1] and describes a rigid fixation of an alloplastic material in the bone, in an asymptomatic clinical situation and functional load [2]. The literature demonstrates five factors that are essential for osseointegration, such as implant design, implant material, surface properties, bone quality, and surgical technique [3]. Among surface properties, topography, chemistry, charge, and wettability are key determinants for osseointegration [4]. Changes on implant surface properties, such as an increase in roughness, were proposed to lead to a better clinical and histological result [5], influencing cell behavior [6] and biofilm formation [7]. Peri-implant microbiota has a similar composition to the one observed at the gingival sulcus of adjacent teeth [8–10]. Just like in natural teeth, the development of biofilm induces biological responses of hard and soft tissue around implants, resulting in pocket deepening, bleeding on probing, exudation, bone loss, and clinical mobility, impairing the success of implant therapy [8, 11]. The colonization, structure, and composition of the biofilm on implant surfaces is influenced by its surface roughness, chemical composition, hydrophobic properties, surface electrical charge, and energy [7, 12]. Modifications in micro- and nano-topography of dental implants were proposed to increase bone-to-implant contact, but biofilm accumulation in rougher surfaces is accelerated when implant threads are exposed to the oral cavity [12, 13], which make these areas more difficult to decontaminate [13]. On the other hand, moderate rough implants show higher rates of re-osseointegration when compared to machined ones [14]. Considering that decontamination of rough implant surfaces is a challenge in the treatment of peri-implant diseases, it is essential to provide adequate conditions to obtain re-osseointegration [15–17] by removing all the contaminant load, since bacterial remnants impair re-osseointegration and leads to peri-implantitis recurrence [18]. Decontamination and/or detoxification of implant surfaces can be performed by mechanical and chemical methods [17–20]. There is no consensus in literature on the best protocol to decontaminate implant surfaces [21]. Decontamination with different solutions was unable to completely decontaminate implant surfaces [22, 23] and could induce changes in the chemical and physical properties of implant surfaces [24], with partial re-osseointegration being reported in animals [22]. The aim of this study is to investigate the behavior of osteoblastic cells in different moderate rough implants and compare the results of different pristine and decontaminated surfaces. Material and methods Experimental design Five types of implants with different macro and microstructure were acquired in the market and are described in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Table 1 Characteristics of dental implants evaluated according to manufacturer Manufacturer Implant type Surface treatment Macrogeometry External dimensions (Ø × L) 1.Biomet 3i® (USA) Nanotite Dual-acid-etched and nanometer scale crystals of calcium phosphate Parallel walled Tapered 4.0 × 10 mm 2.Biomet 3i® (USA) Osseotite Dual-acid-etched, sandblasted and processed with nitric, hydrochloric and sulfuric acids Parallel walled Certain Tapered 4.0 × 10 mm 3. Straumann® (Switzerland) Bone level SLActive, chemically modified surface of sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched Hybrid tapered, platform switch 4.1 × 10 mm 4. Neodent® (Brazil) Drive CM Acqua Acqua, sandblasted, acid-etched and immersed in 0.9% sodium chloride Conical central, Cone Morse connection 4 3 × 10 mm 5.Neodent® (Brazil) Drive CM Neoporos Neoporos, sandblasted with acid-etched Conical central, Cone Morse connection 4.3 × 10 mm Fig. 1 General features and macrogeometry of each model of dental implant evaluated (Macrogeometry and SEM images; × 500 magnification). a, f, k Nanonite, Biomet 3i®, USA. b, g, l Osseotite, Biomet 3i®, USA. c, h, m Bone Level, Sraumann®, Switzerland. d, i, n Drive CM Acqua, Neodent®, Brazil. e, j, o Drive CM Neoporos, Neodent®, Brazil Surface chemical composition The chemical composition of each implant surface (n = 1/type of implant) was investigated at cervical, central, and apical regions by energy dispersive X-ray detector (EDS, INCA x-act, Oxford) to analyze the percentage of chemical atomic element at the Anelasticity and Biomaterials Laboratory of Sao Paulo State University (Bauru, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Wettability (sessile-drop contact angle measurements) Wettability properties were investigated on implant surface (n = 1/type of implant) at the Chemical-Physical Department of São Paulo State University (Araraquara, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Samples were stabilized in acrylic resin models and analyzed only in the mid-third of each implant. Wettability was analyzed at room temperature, with 75% air relative humidity, at the Contact Angle System (video-based Dataphysics, OCA, 15model). Average values of the right and left angles of each sample were determined. Standardized parameters were adjusted in a volume water of 1.000 μl, a medium probe, and a wettability time (waterfall) of 10 s. The right and left contact angle (CA) were defined by Young La Place equation (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 Wettabilty analysis. CAR, contact angle right side; CAL, contact angle left side; CAF, contact angle final; a Nanotite. b Osseotite. c SLActive. d Acqua. e Cone Morse Neoporos Contamination of implants with strains of Aa (ATCC 29523) The protocol of contamination was based on Freire et al. [25]. An amount of 20 μl of A. actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) was prepared, and after 2 days of incubation, the colony was collected and transferred in a tube with 5 mL of broth culture medium BHI (Brain Heart Infusion Agar, Acumedia, Neogen Corporation, MI, USA) at 37 °C for a period of 4 days. Implants were contaminated with a bacterial concentration of 1.5 × 108 CFU in 2 mL of broth culture medium per well. Decontamination of implant surfaces After the days of contamination process, the decontamination of implant surface was performed inside a laminar flow hood. The groups of different protocols for decontamination were prescribed for the sample (n = 6/type of implant): Immersion in chlorhexidine 0.12% for 3 min; Sequential immersion in EDTA 24% for 3 min and citric acid 10% for 3 min; Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (methylene blue 100 μg/ml and Diode LASER, Therapy XT [DMC, Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil] for 3 min). In the final stage, all implants were rinsed with saline solution for 1 min. The experimental group consists of the sum of all decontaminated samples, and the control group consists of implant surface uncontaminated (n = 1/type of implant). Osteoblast-like cell adhesion and proliferation Pre-existing human primary osteogenic sarcoma (Saos-2) cells (ATCC HTB85) were gently provided by the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Periodontics of Ribeirao Preto School of Dentistry—USP. Cells were cultivated in 15% McCoys’ culture medium containing 2 mM glutamine and 10% fetal bovine serum in humid atmosphere containing 5% CO2 at 37 °C. Culture medium was replaced every other day. Upon confluence, cells were detached by enzymatic methods (0.2% trypsin) and transferred to progressively larger tissue flasks (Sigma-Aldrich, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Saos-2 cells (5 × 104 in 220 μL of culture medium) were plated on pristine implants (control; n = 5/type of implant) and on decontaminated implants (test; n = 15/type of implant). For this, the samples were positioned in 24-well cell culture plates containing culture medium 15% McCoy’s 5A + 2 mM glutamine + 10% fetal bovine serum (medium = 50 ml, 42.5 McCoys more 7.5 fetal bovine saline), and were maintained in an incubator for wet cell culture atmosphere containing 5% CO2 at 37 °C (Fig. 3). After 24 h and 72 h, the samples were fixed with Karnovsky solution (6% glutaraldehyde and 4% paraformaldehyde in 0.2 M cacodylate buffer) for 2 h. After two washes in 0.1 M cacodylate buffer for 15 min, the specimens were fixed with 2% osmium tetroxide in cacodylate buffer at 4 °C for 2 h and dehydrated with solutions of alcohol 30–70%. After gradually increasing concentration gradient, the specimens were embedded in 100% hexamethyldisilazane and dried at room temperature for 24 h. After that, the specimens were coated with gold (Q150R E Plus, UK) for 20 s with a density of 9.32 g/m3. Three photomicrographs corresponding to the cervical, central, and apical thirds of each implant investigated were acquired at × 500 magnification (AFORE, JEOL, JSM-6610, Japan). The adhesion of Saos-2 cells on implant valleys and flanks were analyzed in combination. Cell counting was performed using the ImageJ software (NIH, Bethesda, USA), according to the plugin Counting Cells (University of Chicago, USA). Briefly, SEM images were converted to 32 bits; the threshold tool was selected to subtract background and analyze particles, resulting in the total and percentage area covered by cells. Fig. 3 Human primary osteogenic sarcoma (Saos-2) cells (5 × 104 cells). a Saos-2 cells before plating; b 24 h of Saos-2 cells on dental implant surface; c 72 h of Saos-2 cells on dental implant surface Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed at GraphPad Prism 7.0 for Mac, adopting a 5% significance level at all tests. Comparisons in wettability analysis were performed by Kruskal-Wallis post hoc Dunn. The number of cells adhered to implant surfaces after 24 h and 72 h in experimental and control groups were analyzed between and within groups by ANOVA post hoc Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. Results Surface chemical composition The chemical composition in atomic percentage (atomic%) of each implant is demonstrated in Fig. 4. NT and CM implants were composed of titanium only (100%); OT implant showed the presence of titanium (65.86%), oxygen (23.92%), aluminum (6.21%), vanadium (2.92%), calcium (0.69%), and phosphorus (0.40%); SLA implant showed the presence of titanium (66.38%), oxygen (22.73%), zirconium (5.12%), sodium (3.11%), bromine (0.77%), chlorum (1.60%), and calcium (0.30%); and ACQ implant showed the presence of titanium (97.34%), sodium (1.54%), chlorum (0.78%), and aluminum (0.33%). Fig. 4 Spectrum of EDS for the area analyzed. Chemical composition of titanium with different surface treatment, note the high peaks of titanium element (a, b, c, d, and e). a Nanotite. b Osseotite. c SLActive. d Acqua. e Cone Morse Wettability analysis The sessile-drop contact angle analysis showed that ACQ exhibited the most hydrophilic behavior, while NT and OT exhibited more hydrophobic responses (Table 2). Significant differences (p < 0.0001; Kruskal-Wallis) were found between NT (hydrophobic) and ACQ (hydrophilic). Table 2 Wettability results CAR CAL CAF NT 126.6° 126.3° 131.1°* OT 115.4° 117.2° 110.9° SLA 55.9° 60.0° 40.6° ACQ < 5° < 5° < 5°* CM 76.3° 73.6° 79.4° *Significant differences (p < 0.05) Kruskal-Wallis p< 0.0001; significant differences (p<0.05) between groups NT and ACQ (mean values) Adhesion and proliferation of Saos-2 cells in uncontaminated and decontaminated sites All decontaminated implants showed less cells adhered at surfaces after 24 h and 72 h when compared to the respective uncontaminated sites (control group) (Table 3). The results of cell adhesion on implant surface at 24 h (Fig. 5) after decontamination protocols (test group) showed lower values when compared to the control group; however, only CM implants showed statistic significant difference between test and control group (p = 0.0498; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test) (Table 3). Table 3 Cell adhesion (24 h) and proliferation (72 h) on implant surfaces (mean ± SD) NT OT SLA ACQ CM Control Test p Control Test p Control Test p Control Test p Control Test p 24 h 4535.3 ± 2919.5a,c 1329.8 ± 205.7a,b > 0.9999 5140.0 ± 929.8c 2468.1 ± 658.7a,c,b 0.3205 3538.3 ± 2251.9a,c,b 864.6 ± 445.0a,b 0.3197 4109.6 ± 843.1a,c,b 1688.6 ± 326.2a,b 0.4444 4519.6 ± 559.2a,c 746.2 ± 863.2b 0.0498 72 h 14,368.7 ± 3481.8a 2160.7 ± 2912.0b < 0.0001 7694.3 ± 655.3 c 1446.8 ± 725.9 b 0.0026 7165.6 ± 122.0 c 642.0 ± 190.6 b 0.0016 8831.3 ± 402.5 c 2669.7 ± 562.5 b 0.003 6558.6 ± 1285.3 c 3267.3 ± 689.7 b 0.2833 p 0.02 0.6479 0.0177 0.1455 0.0495 0.4703 0.0009 0.0592 0.0654 0.0168 Tukey’s multiple comparisons test; post hoc Tukey; different letters in same line represent significant differences between groups C control (uncontaminated), T test (decontaminated) *Significant differences (p < 0.05); Tukey’s multiple comparisons test Fig. 5 SEM photomicrographs of Saos-2 cell adhesion and proliferation. SEM images of Saos-2 cells on NT, OT, SLA, ACQ, and CM dental implant surfaces after 24 and 72 h, adhesion and proliferation respectively (× 500 magnification) The results of cell proliferation on implant surface at 72 h (Fig. 5) after decontamination protocols (test group) also showed lower values when compared to pristine implants (control group). No differences were found between intergroup analysis in the test group (p > 0.05; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test). NT implants showed the higher value at cell proliferation for the control group, showing statistic significant difference when compared to all other types (p = 0.0002; Tukey’s multiple comparisons test) (Table 3). Therefore, when comparing the control with the test group, only CM showed no significant difference (p = 0.2833). Discussion In the past few years, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis has increased, varying from 19 to 65% and from 1 to 47%, respectively [26]. Plaque accumulation at implant surfaces triggers an inflammatory response that leads to the development of mucositis or peri-implantitis [27]. In this study, we have investigated surface properties of different implants acquired in the market, including chemical composition and wettability analysis. Additionally, we have also investigated the effects of chemical surface decontamination on the adhesion and proliferation of osteoblast-like cells. Implant surface properties are influenced not only by microtopography or nanotopography, but also by macrotopography. Most in vitro studies investigating the effects of decontamination methods of implant surfaces are performed in titanium disks [7, 12, 19, 21, 24, 28–33] which do not reproduce the macro- and microtopography characteristics of implants. For these reasons, in this study, we aimed to investigate the impact of chemical decontamination at cell adhesion and proliferation in five different dental implants of different brands that previously received unique surface treatments and are considered the most commercially available in the world. Rosa et al. [34] have also investigated implants from different batches and companies, totalizing 3 implants per group, and found differences from batches of the same company in two types of Brazilian implants, while the remaining samples were more uniform. Considering that, we have used 6 samples of each implant, minimizing the risk of bias. Microbial colonization around implants follows a similar course than natural teeth, with a shift in microbial composition as disease develops [35]. A study [36] showed that the prevalence of periodontal pathogens was similar among individuals with periodontitis and peri-implantitis, independent from health condition. While the prevalence and levels of P. gingivalis and F. nucleatum were positively associated with periodontitis, but not with peri-implantitis, A. actinomycetemcomitans was positively associated with both periodontitis and peri-implantitis. Different studies showed that A. actinomycetemcomitans is consistently found in peri-implantitis [10, 36–38], being able to infect the abutment-implant interface [9, 10]. In this study, a strain of A. actinomycetemcomitans was used to contaminate implant surfaces, considering that this species is able to induce biofilm formation in smooth and rough surfaces in vitro and to trigger an inflammatory response characterized by spontaneous bleeding, ulceration, soft tissue necrosis, hyperplasia, and implant failure in vivo [25]. Bacterial adhesion to Ti surfaces is roughness-dependent [7, 12], although not significantly influencing plaque composition [7]. Increased roughness provides a larger surface and additional niches for bacterial adhesion, reduces shearing forces, and, as a consequence, reduces the desorption of bacteria during early phases of adhesion [7, 39]. However, since in our study all implants were considered minimally to moderately rough, differences in the percentage of contaminated area may be attributed to surface properties other than roughness, such as surface energy, chemical composition, and wettability. All implants were composed of titanium (Ti), but OT, SLA, and ACQ showed the presence of chemical elements other than Ti, including aluminum, vanadium, sodium, chlorine, and oxygen. Chemical composition of the surface results in different reactions from the surrounding media [40] and is different from the bulk material due to preparation methods and impurities [41]. It has been shown that the chemical composition and surface topography in the macro and micro scales have strong effects on cell behavior [6]. Modifications in the nanoscale level, which can be created by deposition of a material at implant surface or by etching away part of a surface, as observed in some implants investigated in this study, may also influence cell and bacterial behavior [42]. Although the nanotopographic surface is chemically similar to the bulk, the surface itself may induce differences in surface chemistry or energy, such as an increase in hydrophobicity [42]. The strength of cellular adhesion to a nanorough substrate can be predicted by a mathematical model: for small surface energy, increases in surface roughness impairs cell adhesion; in moderate or intermediate surface energy, increases in surface roughness has a minor effect on cell adhesion; and in large surface energy, optimal roughness maximizes cell adhesion [43]. Considering that, surface topography and physico-chemical properties of materials may promote cell adhesion and influence bacterial adhesion [42]. These characteristics may be modified by mechanical and/or chemical treatments performed to detoxify contaminated implant surfaces. Therefore, it is important to determine if moderately rough implants decontaminated by mechanical and chemical methods allows the adhesion of osteoblastic cells, which is essential to re-osseointegration. Our findings showed that, despite decontamination procedures, all implants may have presented a remaining contaminated area that may have affected cell adhesion and proliferation, since pristine implants showed higher number of cells attached to the surface after 24 h and 72 h. Since no differences in the number of attached cells to hydrophobic or hydrophilic surfaces were found, it can be assumed that residual contamination impaired cell adhesion and spreading. Bürgers et al. [29] have also shown that decontamination of titanium discs previously contaminated by monocultures of S. epidermidis, S. sanguinis, and C. albicans were only partially effective, except for the use of sodium hypochlorite, which is toxic to patients. Hydrophilic surfaces tend to enhance the early stages of cell adhesion, proliferation, differentiation, and bone mineralization [44, 45], and promote earlier osseointegration as determined by greater bone-to-implant contact at initial stages of osseointegration [46]. Surface energy of an implant, indirectly measured by the liquid-solid contact angle (CA), is therefore related to wettability [47]. In this study, three surfaces were considered as hydrophilic (SLA, ACQ, and CM), and the remaining two (NT and OT) were found to be hydrophobic. ACQ was considered as superhydrophilic, since the angle contact is close to 0o. ACQ showed the less percentage of contaminated area, with significant differences from NT. Rodriguez Y Baena et al. [48] showed significantly less contaminated area in OT and even lesser on NT than on machined implants, especially for A. actinomycetemcomitans, S. mutans, and S. sanguis than for P. gingivalis and S. salivarius strains. Similar results were described by Lubin et al. [30], who showed that OT discs were easier to decontaminate than NT and that tetracycline and citric acid were the most effective solutions for the disinfection of P. gingivalis from OT discs. These findings suggest that different solutions may have different outcomes depending on surface characteristics. Conclusions Only NT and CM implants showed chemical composition by titanium pure. ACQ exhibited hydrophilic behavior while NT and OT hydrophobic properties. The decontaminated implants showed lesser cells adhered during 24 and 72 h when compared to uncontaminated implants, corresponding respectively to adhesion and proliferation analysis. CM implants showed more cells attached after 24 h for experimental group. NT implants demonstrated more cell proliferation after 72 h for control group. Considering that, further preclinical and clinical studies are necessary to determine how different decontamination protocols can affect cell migration and proliferation on implants with different surface treatment, chemistry, surface energy, and wettability. Abbreviations NTNanotite OTOsseotite SLASLActive ACQAcqua CMNeoporos drive Cone Morse SEMScanning electron microscopy EDSEnergy dispersive X-ray spectrometry WETTWettability analysis Saos-2Pre-existing human primary osteogenic sarcoma cells AaAggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans EDTAEthylenediaminetetraacetic acid CAContact angle Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript: Ísis de Fátima Balderrama performed all analysis, collected the data, and wrote the paper; Matheus Völz Cardoso proposed and performed the in vitro analysis; Vitor Toledo de Stuani performed the analysis and helped shape the paper; Adriana Arruda Matos proposed and performed the cell culture analysis (Saos-2); Rodrigo Cardoso de Oliveira: verified the analyticsal methods and provided critical feedback and helped shape the research; Sebastião Luiz Aguiar Greghi contributed data and analysis tools; Adriana Campos Passanezi Sant’Ana conceived and designed the analysis and idea, verified the analytical methods, and supervised the findings of this work. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript. Authors’ information Not applicable. Funding This work was supported by the Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo—USP and by Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—CAPES, Brazilian Ministry of Education. Availability of data and materials The authors from this work are available to support data. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication All authors are aware for publication of this work. Competing interests Ísis de Fátima Balderrama, Matheus Völz Cardoso, Vitor de Toledo Stuani, Rodrigo Cardoso de Oliveira, Adriana Arruda Matos, Sebastião Luiz Aguiar Greghi, and Adriana Campos Passanezi Sant’Ana declare that they have no competing interests. ==== Refs References 1. Bränemark PI Hansson BO Adell R Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977 16 1 132 2. Albrektsson T Sennerby L Direct bone anchorage of oral implants: clinical and experimental considerations of the concept of osseointegration Int J Prosthodont 1990 3 30 41 2372366 3. Albrektsson T Direct bone anchorage of dental implants J Prosthet Dent 1983 50 255 261 10.1016/0022-3913(83)90027-6 6352912 4. Buser D Broggini N Wieland M Enhanced bone apposition to a chemically modified SLA titanium surface J Dent Res 2004 83 529 533 10.1177/154405910408300704 15218041 5. Wennerberg A Albrektsson T Effects of titanium surface topography on bone integration: a systematic review Clin Oral Implants Res 2009 20 172 184 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01775.x 19663964 6. Anselme K Osteoblast adhesion on biomaterials Biomaterials 2000 21 667 681 10.1016/S0142-9612(99)00242-2 10711964 7. Al-Ahmad A Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M Fackler A In vivo study of the initial bacterial adhesion on different implant materials Arch Oral Biol 2013 58 1139 1147 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2013.04.011 23694907 8. Mombelli A van OOsten MA Schurch E Jr The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants Oral Microbiol Immunol 1987 2 145 151 10.1111/j.1399-302X.1987.tb00298.x 3507627 9. Canullo L Peñarrocha-Oltra D Covani U Microbiologic and clinical findings of implants in healthy condition and with peri-implantitis Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015 30 834 842 10.11607/jomi.3947 26252036 10. Canullo L Peñarrocha-Oltra D Covani U Clinical and microbiological findings in patients with peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional study Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 27 3 376 382 10.1111/clr.12557 25622536 11. Charalampakis G Belibasakis GN Microbiome of peri-implant infections: lessons from conventional, molecular and metagenomics analyses Virulence 2015 6 183 187 10.4161/21505594.2014.980661 25654499 12. Badhihi Hauslich L Sela MN Steinberg D The adhesion of oral bacteria to modified titanium surfaces: role of plasma proteins and electrostatic forces Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 24 49 56 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02364.x 22150723 13. Teughels W Van Assche N Sliepen I Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development Clin Oral Implants Res 2006 17 68 81 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01353.x 16968383 14. Persson LG Berglundh T Lindhe J Re-osseointegration after treatment of peri-implantitis at different implant surfaces. An experimental study in the dog Clin Oral Implants Res 2001 12 595 603 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.120607.x 11737103 15. Lang NP Berghlundh T Heitz-Mayfield LJ Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding implant survival and complications Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004 19 150 154 15635955 16. Lindhe J Meyle J Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology Peri-implant diseases: consensus report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology J Clin Periodontol 2008 35 282 285 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01283.x 18724855 17. Schwarz F Sahm N Iglhaut G Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized controlled clinical study J Clin Periodontol 2001 38 276 284 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01690.x 18. Kreisler M Kohnen W Christoffers AB In vitro evaluation of the biocompatibility of contaminated implant surfaces treated with an Er:YAG laser and an air powder system Clin Oral Implants Res 2005 16 36 43 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01056.x 15642029 19. Salmeron S Rezende ML Consolaro A Laser therapy as an effective method for implant surface decontamination: a histomorphometric study in rats J Periodontol 2013 84 641 649 10.1902/jop.2012.120166 22680303 20. Mellado-Valero A Buitrago-Vera P Solá-Ruiz MF Decontamination of dental implant surface in peri-implantitis treatment: a literature review Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2013 18 e869 e876 10.4317/medoral.19420 23986023 21. Gosau M Hahnel S Schwarz F Effect of six different peri-implantitis disinfection methods on in vivo human oral biofilm Clin Oral Implants Res 2010 21 866 872 20666798 22. Valderrama P, Wilson TG Jr. Detoxification of implant surfaces affected by peri-implant disease: an overview of surgical methods. Int J Dent. 2013:740–680. 23. Dostie S Alkadi LT Owen G Chemotherapeutic decontamination of dental implants colonized by mature multispecies oral biofilm J Clin Periodontol 2017 44 403 409 10.1111/jcpe.12699 28117914 24. Strever JM Lee J Ealick W Erbium, Chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser effectively ablates single-species biofilm on titanium disks without detectable surface damage J Periodontol 2017 88 484 492 10.1902/jop.2016.160529 27885966 25. Freire MO Sedghizadeh PP Schaudinn C, et al Development of an animal model for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomtians biofilm-mediated oral osteolytic infection: a preliminary study. J Periodontol. 2011 82 778 89 21222546 26. Derks J Tomasi C Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology J Clin Periodontol 2015 42 S158 S171 10.1111/jcpe.12334 25495683 27. Renvert S Quirineyn M Risk indicators for peri-implantitis: a narrative review Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 26 15 44 10.1111/clr.12636 26385619 28. Ungvári K Pelsöczi IK Kormos B Effects of titanium implant surfaces of chemical agents used for the treatment of peri-implantitis J Biomed Mater Res B: Appl Biomater 2010 94 222 229 20524198 29. Bürgers R Witecy C Hahnel S The effect of various topical peri-implantitis antiseptics on Staphylococcus epidermidis, Candida albicans and Streptococcus sanguinis Arch Oral Biol 2012 57 940 947 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2012.01.015 22365324 30. Lubin J Hernandez MA Drukteinis SE Effectiveness of disinfection therapies and promotion of osteoblast growth on osseotite and nanotite implant surfaces Implant Dent 2014 23 426 433 24776940 31. Sánchez MC Llama-Palacios A Fernández E An in vitro biofilm model associated to dental implants: structural and quantitative analysis of in vitro biofilm formation on different dental implant surfaces Dent Mater 2014 30 1161 1171 10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.008 25110288 32. Wheelis SE Gindri IM Valderrama P Effects of decontamination solutions on the surface of titanium: investigation of surface morphology, composition and roughness Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 27 329 340 10.1111/clr.12545 25580643 33. Kotsakis GA Lan C Barbosa J Antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of peri-implantitis alter the physicochemistry and cytocompatibility of titanium surfaces J Periodontol 2016 87 809 819 10.1902/jop.2016.150684 26923474 34. Rosa MB Albrektsson T Francischone CE Micrometric characterization of the implant surfaces from the five largest companies in Brazil, the second largest worldwide implant market Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 28 358 365 10.11607/jomi.2791 23527375 35. Leonhardt A Berglundh T Ericsson I Putative periodontal pathogens on titanium implants and teeth in experimental gingivitis and periodontitis in beagle dogs Clin Oral Implants Res 1992 3 112 119 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030303.x 1290791 36. Zhuang LF Watt RM Mattheos N Periodontal and peri-implant microbiota in patients with healthy and inflamed periodontal and peri-implant tissues Clin Oral Implants Res 2016 27 13 21 10.1111/clr.12508 25399962 37. Van Winkelhoff AJ Wolf JW Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans-associated peri-implantitis in an edentulous patient. A case report J Clin Periodontol 2000 27 531 535 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027007531.x 10914896 38. Persson GR Renvert S Cluster of bacteria associated with peri-implantitis Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014 16 783 793 10.1111/cid.12052 23527870 39. Rimondini L Farè S Brambilla E The effect of surface roughness on early in vivo plaque colonization on titanium J Periodontol 1997 68 556 562 10.1902/jop.1997.68.6.556 9203099 40. Albrektsson T Wennerberg A Oral implant surfaces: part 1 – review focusing on topographic and chemical properties of different surfaces and in vivo responses to them Int J Prosthodont 2004 17 536 543 15543910 41. Smith DC Pilliar RM Metson JB Dental implant materials. 2. Preparative procedures and surface spectroscopic studies J Biomed Mater Res 1992 25 1069 1084 10.1002/jbm.820250903 42. Anselme K Davidson P Popa AM The interaction of cells and bacteria with surfaces at the nanometre scale Acta Biomater 2010 6 3824 3846 10.1016/j.actbio.2010.04.001 20371386 43. Decuzzi P Ferrari M Modulating cellular adhesion through nanotopography Biomaterials 2010 31 173 179 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.09.018 19783034 44. Eriksson C Nygren H Ohlson K Implantation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic titanium discs in rat tibia: cellular reaction on the surfaces during the first 3 weeks in bone Biomaterials 2004 25 4759 4766 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2003.12.006 15120522 45. Bornstein MM Valderrama P Jones AA Bone apposition around two different sandblasted and acid titanium implant surfaces: a histomorphometric study in canine mandibles Clin Oral Implants Res 2008 19 233 241 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01473.x 18177427 46. Lang NP Salvi GE Huynh-Ba G Early osseointegration to hydrophilic and hydrophobic implant surfaces in humans Clin Oral Impl Res 2011 22 349 356 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02172.x 47. Gittens RA Scheideler L Rupp F Hyzy SL Geis-Gerstorfer J Schwartz Z Boyan BD A review on the wettability of dental implant surfaces II: biological and clinical aspects Acta Biomater 2014 10 2907 2918 10.1016/j.actbio.2014.03.032 24709541 48. Rodriguez y Baena R Arciola CR Selan L Evaluation of bacterial adhesion on machined titanium, Osseotite® and Nanotite® discs Int J Artif Organs 2012 35 754 761 10.5301/ijao.5000143 23065893