Objective @#To investigate the effect of different
decontamination methods, including
photodynamic therapy, sandblasting and
titanium curette, on
titanium surface morphology and
bacterial adhesion for the
treatment of peri-implant
disease. @*
Methods@#
Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and
Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn) were inoculated on the surface of polished
titanium specimens, and
titanium specimen surfaces were treated with different
decontamination methods after incubation. The
titanium specimens were divided into a no-
treatment control group, photodynamic group, sandblasting group and
titanium curette group according to different
decontamination methods. The changes in
titanium surface roughness were observed by
atomic force microscopy (AFM), and the remaining
bacteria on the
titanium surface were observed by
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and live/dead
bacteria staining tests. After reinoculation of Pg and Fn, bacterial readhesion was observed on the surface of decontaminated
titanium specimens. @*Results @#The AFM results showed that the
surface roughness of the
titanium curette group was significantly higher than that of the no-
treatment control group, photodynamic group and sandblasting group (P<0.05), and there was no statistically significant difference between the no-
treatment control group, photodynamic group and sandblasting group (P>0.05). The results of contact angle measurement showed that the surface contact angle of each
treatment group was smaller than that of the no-
treatment control group (P<0.05). The SEM results obtained after the
titanium specimen surface was decontaminated showed that the number of
bacteria on the no-
treatment control group surface was higher and the
bacteria were relatively concentrated. The
bacteria on the surface of the photodynamic group, sandblasting group and
titanium curette group were scattered and distributed in small numbers, and most
bacteria on the surface of the photodynamic group were ruptured. The results of the live/dead
bacteria staining experiment showed that the percentage of dead
bacteria on the surface of the photodynamic group was significantly higher than that of the no-
treatment control group, sandblasting group and
titanium curette group (P<0.05). The remaining
bacteria on the surface of the sandblasting group and
titanium curette groups were mainly live
bacteria. The remaining
bacterial adhesion on the surface was significantly reduced for the sandblasting group compared to the no-
treatment control group and the photodynamic and
titanium curette groups (P<0.05). SEM and live/dead
bacteria staining results of bacterial readhesion on the surface of
titanium specimens showed that there was an aggregation of Pg on the surface of the
titanium curette group, and its surface
bacterial adhesion was significantly higher than that of the no-
treatment control group, photodynamic group and sandblasting group. @*Conclusion @#In mechanical
decontamination, sandblasting machines are a better option than
photodynamic therapy and
titanium curettes; however, sandblasting does not remove all bacterial
contamination. For
sterilization,
photodynamic therapy is more effective than sandblasting and
titanium curettes. A combination of sandblasting and
photodynamic therapy methods for the
treatment of peri-implant
disease may be considered in clinical practice.