Nicola A. Valente 1 , Thomas S. Mang 2 , Michael N. Hatton 3 , Lynn M. Mikulski, Sebastiano Andreana 4 1 Department of Periodontics and Endodontics, 2 Department of Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery, 3 Department of Oral Diagnostic Sciences 4 Department of Restorative Dentistry Aim To assess the surface decontamination potential of diode laser, with different wavelengths, with or without the aid of photodynamic therapy (PDT) on two different implant surfaces. Material and Methods Fresh porcine ribs were cut in blocks and sterilized. Eleven sterile implants per group were placed into the blocks. A standardized circumferential bony defect was created around the implant body. Defects were inoculated with 3 µL of S. sanguinis. Blocks were incubated in a 5% CO2, 37 °C atmosphere for 24hours, then the implants were subjected to different treatment protocols: 810nm or 980nm diode laser with or without PDT plus 3 control groups, one per surface characteristics and a mixed one coated with PDT dye (indocyanine green), were not treated, for a total of 11 groups. The laser tip was placed into the defects for 30 seconds set at 1.0W continuos in an up-and-down motion. The defects were rinsed with TSB and fluid plated. Implants were retrieved and acquired media plated. Colony forming units (CFU) were counted 48 hours after incubation. Results There is a clear evidence that both laser's wavelength minimize the CFU counts in both type of surfaces, with the difference being statistically significant. The use of PDT gives contradicting results with a wide range of CFUs total count. However when plating derived from vortexing the implants there is a remarkable effect of the use of cardiogreen. Conclusion The use of diode lasers in treatment of peri-implantitis is efficacious in this ex-vivo study regardless of the surface roughness. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial effects of different wavelengths of diode lasers with and without the adjunctive use of photodynamic therapy on rough and smooth implant surfaces: an ex vivo study References • Klinge B, Meyle J. EAO Consensus Report: Peri-implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23 (Suppl. 6), 2012, 108–110 • Lindhe J, Meyle J. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008; 35 (Suppl. 8):282–285 • Lang NP, Berglundh T on Behalf of Working Group 4 of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology: Periimplant diseases: where are we now? – Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38 (Suppl. 11): 178–181. • Heitz-Mayfield LJ. Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):292-304. • Haas R, Dörtbudak O, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G. Elimination of bacteria on different implant surfaces through photosensitization and soft laser. An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997 Aug;8(4):249-54. • Sennhenn-Kirchner S, Klaue S, Wolff N, Mergeryan H, Borg von Zepelin M, Jacobs HG. Decontamination of rough titanium surfaces with diode lasers: microbiological findings on in vivo grown biofilms. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 18, 2007; 126–132 ANOVA CFUs Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 60231,545 5 12046,309 15,558 ,000 Within Groups 97557,000 126 774,262 Total 157788,545 131 Post Hoc Tests Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: CFUs Tukey HSD (I) Treatment (J) Treatment Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound 810nm 980nm 6,727 8,390 ,967 -17,55 31,01 810nm PDT 3,591 8,390 ,998 -20,69 27,87 980nm PDT 6,955 8,390 ,962 -17,33 31,23 Control -47,045 * 8,390 ,000 -71,33 -22,77 Control + CG -32,682 * 8,390 ,002 -56,96 -8,40 980nm 810nm -6,727 8,390 ,967 -31,01 17,55 810nm PDT -3,136 8,390 ,999 -27,42 21,14 980nm PDT ,227 8,390 1,000 -24,05 24,51 Control -53,773 * 8,390 ,000 -78,05 -29,49 Control + CG -39,409 * 8,390 ,000 -63,69 -15,13 810nm PDT 810nm -3,591 8,390 ,998 -27,87 20,69 980nm 3,136 8,390 ,999 -21,14 27,42 980nm PDT 3,364 8,390 ,999 -20,92 27,64 Control -50,636 * 8,390 ,000 -74,92 -26,36 Control + CG -36,273 * 8,390 ,000 -60,55 -11,99 980nm PDT 810nm -6,955 8,390 ,962 -31,23 17,33 980nm -,227 8,390 1,000 -24,51 24,05 810nm PDT -3,364 8,390 ,999 -27,64 20,92 Control -54,000 * 8,390 ,000 -78,28 -29,72 Control + CG -39,636 * 8,390 ,000 -63,92 -15,36 Control 810nm 47,045 * 8,390 ,000 22,77 71,33 980nm 53,773 * 8,390 ,000 29,49 78,05 810nm PDT 50,636 * 8,390 ,000 26,36 74,92 980nm PDT 54,000 * 8,390 ,000 29,72 78,28 Control + CG 14,364 8,390 ,526 -9,92 38,64 Control + CG 810nm 32,682 * 8,390 ,002 8,40 56,96 980nm 39,409 * 8,390 ,000 15,13 63,69 810nm PDT 36,273 * 8,390 ,000 11,99 60,55 980nm PDT 39,636 * 8,390 ,000 15,36 63,92 Control -14,364 8,390 ,526 -38,64 9,92 *. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.