A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparative study between the effects of photodynamic therapy and conventional therapy on microbial reduction in ligature-induced peri-implantitis in dogs. | LitMetric

Background: Progressive peri-implant bone losses, which are accompanied by inflammatory lesions in the soft tissues, are referred to as peri-implantitis. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and conventional technique on microbial reduction in ligature-induced peri-implantitis in dogs.

Methods: Eighteen third premolars from nine Labrador retriever dogs were extracted and the implants were submerged. After osseointegration, peri-implantitis was induced. After 4 months, ligature was removed and natural bacterial plaque was allowed to form for another 4 months. The animals were then randomly divided into two groups. In the conventional group, they were treated using mucoperiosteal flaps for scaling the implant surface and chlorexidine (conventional) irrigation. In the PDT group, only mucoperiosteal scaling was carried out before photodynamic therapy. Inside the peri-implant pocket, a paste-based azulene photosensitizer was placed and then a GaAlAs low-power laser (lambda=660 nm, P=40 mW, E=7.2 J for 3 minutes) was used. Microbiological samples were obtained before and immediately after treatment. Before treatment, one implant was removed and analyzed by scanning electron microscopy to validate the contamination.

Results: The results of this study showed that Prevotella sp., Fusobacterium sp., and S. Beta-haemolyticus were significantly reduced for both groups. After treatment, no significant differences were observed between the groups.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that photodynamic therapy is a non-invasive method that could be used to reduce microorganisms in peri-implantitis.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2005.76.8.1275DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

photodynamic therapy
16
effects photodynamic
8
microbial reduction
8
reduction ligature-induced
8
ligature-induced peri-implantitis
8
therapy
5
peri-implantitis
5
comparative study
4
study effects
4
photodynamic
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!