Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and light-activated disinfection (LAD) against a 3-day-old bacterial suspension prepared from three different bacterial species present on titanium dental implants, and to analyze the possible alterations of the implant surfaces as a result of the PDT and LAD.
Materials and methods: The study was conducted on 72 titanium dental implants contaminated with a bacterial suspension prepared from three bacterial species: Prevotella intermedia, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, and Porphyromonas gingivalis. The contaminated implants were incubated under anaerobic conditions for 72 hours and then were randomly divided into four experimental groups and two control groups (n = 12 each), according to the following treatment protocols: group 1 (PDT1): PDT (660 nm, 100 mW, 60 seconds) with toluidine blue; group 2 (PDT2): PDT (660 nm, 100 mW, 60 seconds) with phenothiazine chloride dye; group 3 (LAD): light-emitting diode (LED) with toluidine blue; group 4 (toluidine blue): treatment with only toluidine blue for 60 seconds. In the positive control group, the implants were treated with a 0.2% chlorhexidine-based solution for 60 seconds, and in the negative control group, no treatment was used.
Results: The highest bacterial reduction was recorded in the PDT1 (98.3%) and PDT2 (97.8%) groups. The results of this study showed that there was a statistically significant reduction of bacteria in the PDT1 and PDT2 groups compared with the negative control group (P < .05), individually for each bacterial species as well as for all three species together. LAD was less effective than PDT1 and PDT2, and did not show a statistically significant difference compared with the negative control or any other treatment group. Toluidine blue was the least effective treatment in terms of both the total bacterial count and the individual count for each bacterial species.
Conclusion: Both PDT1 and PDT2 protocols showed a high efficacy against a 3-day-old bacterial biofilm on dental implants and were more effective compared with LAD.