Akhil Ashref* , Priyalochana Gajendran, Thiyaneswaran Nesappan
Introduction
With the growing popularity of replacement of edentulous sites with dental implants, the need for proper healing is necessary for the adequate success and survival of the dental implants.
Importance od healing [1]. After the stage 1 implant placement procedure is necessary as any micro gaps or leaching of the oral bacterial might lead to the colonization of the bacteria in the tissues[2].
It which will in turn affect the Osseo integration of the implant and lead to early failure of the dental implants. Wound healing without any intervening plaque and in turn bacteria is essential for the initial success of the implant [3].
The bacteria of the oral cavity have the potential to alter the wound healing process by interacting with keratinocytes. The oral cavity’s natural micro flora is complex.
During tissue healing, oxygen has been discovered to be an effective substrate [4].
Various mouthwashes have been used in the field of dentistry, with chlorhexidine being the gold standard due to its substantivity property. There has been a search for various alternatives to chlorhexidine due to its inherent limitations such as staining and alteration in taste sensation.
Materials and Methods
The participants of the study were selected from the outpatient department of Implantology Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India and the study was for duration od 3 months.
A total of 20 patients undergoing implant placement were selected for the study during the period of July 2020 to October 2020.
Straumann Rixolid SLA implants were used for the study and all the patients received the same type of implants with same surface characteristics.
10 randomly selected patients were given Chlorhexidine mouthwash, and the remaining 10 patients were given oxygen enriched Blue M gel for the mouthwash.
Results
The results were tabulated, and statistical analysis was done using the SPSS software v23.
When comparing the values between the pre and post chlorhexidine, the results were statistically significant.
As well as when comparing the pre and post BlueM mouthwash (View Results
) It was found that there was a significant reduction in the colony forming units after treatment, bur there was no difference between the two groups The only limitation of the study is its small sample size
Conclusion
Blue M can be used as a safe alternative to chlorhexidine in reducing the microbial load after the placement of implants. There was a promising result in reducing the bacterial load very similar to chlorhexidine. But when compared to each other there wasn’t a significant change between them. Chlorhexidine has the edge in being much cheaper compared to Blue M. Further studies are required with conclusive evidence to be able to determine whether oxygen enriched mouthwashes can replace chlorhexidine in the future.
REFERENCES
-
Xu L, Wang Y, Nguyen VT, Chen J. Effects of topical antibiotic prophylaxis on wound healing after flapless implant surgery: A pilot study. J Periodontol. 2016;87(3): 275-80.
-
Covani U, Marconcini S, Crespi R, Barone A. Bacterial plaque colonization around dental implant surfaces. Implant Dent. 2006;15(3): 298-304.
-
Gabay E, Levin L, Zuabi O, Horwitz J. Plaque score change as an indicator for periimplant health in periodontal patients with immediately restored dental implants. Implant Dent. 2015;24(3): 323-327.
-
6. Serena TE, Bullock NM, Cole W, Lantis J, Li L, Moore S, et al. Topical oxygen therapy in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers: a multicenter, open, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Wound Care. 2021;30:S7-S14