Antimicrobial Activity of Oxygen Active Gel against Porphyromonas gingivalis Contamination at the Implant-abutment Interface

Wang Hsing Han

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Sabino Haroldo Ferrari Jr

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Rafaela D. Parolina de Carvalho

University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brazil.

Rogério Nagai

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Alexandre Miyahira

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Karina Cogo-Müller

University of Campinas - UNICAMP, Campinas-SP, Brazil.

Marcia Hiromi Tanaka

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Debora Pallos

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

Yeon Jung Kim *

Department of Post-graduation in Implantology, School of Dentistry, University of Santo Amaro, São Paulo-SP, Brazil.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


Background: Bacterial contamination at the dental implant abutment interface through microgap may lead to peri-implant tissue infections resulting to marginal bone loss and affecting the long term success of implants.

Aims: The purpose of this In vitro study in vitro was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of oxygen active gel (BlueM®) against Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) at the implant-abutment interface (IAI) in three different types of implant-prosthetic connections.

Methodology: A total of 45 dental implants with three different types of connections were divided into three groups (n=15/each) according to filling product at the interface: Control (C) - unfilled, BlueM (BM) - oxygen active gel, Chlorexidine (CX) - 2% chlorhexidine gel. They were incubated with a solution containing Pg for 5 days under an aerobic condition. Bacterial contamination at the interface were detected and quantificated by qPCR.

Results: All 45 implants showed contamination at the IAI by Pg after 5 days of incubation, independent of prosthetic connection type. EH type connections showed greater contamination by Pg compared to MT type connections (p=0.0098). No differences were observed among different types of connections in BM and CX groups. 

Conclusion: The application of active oxygen gel promoted a reduction in P. gingivalis contamination in EH type connections at the IAI in vitro, but did not eliminate it completely.

Keywords: Microgap, bacterial contamination, interface implant–abutment, dental implant

How to Cite

Han, Wang Hsing, Sabino Haroldo Ferrari Jr, Rafaela D. Parolina de Carvalho, Rogério Nagai, Alexandre Miyahira, Karina Cogo-Müller, Marcia Hiromi Tanaka, Debora Pallos, and Yeon Jung Kim. 2024. “Antimicrobial Activity of Oxygen Active Gel Against Porphyromonas Gingivalis Contamination at the Implant-Abutment Interface”. Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research 36 (7):57-64.


Download data is not yet available.


Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S278-S285.

Available:https://doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12956

Canullo L, Penarrocha-Oltra D, Soldini C, Mazzocco F, Penarrocha M, Covani U. Microbiological assessment of the implant-abutment interface in different connections: Cross-sectional study after 5 years of functional loading. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2015;26:426–34. Available:

Lafaurie GI, Sabogal MA, Castillo DM, Rincón MV, Gómez LA, Lesmes YA, et al. Microbiome and microbial biofilm profiles of peri-implantitis: A systematic review. J Periodontol. 2017;88:1066–89. Available:

Tallarico M, Canullo L, Caneva M, Özcan M. Microbial colonization at the implant-abutment interface and its possible influence on periimplantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61:233–41. Available:

Orsini G, Fanali S, Scarano A, Petrone G, di Silvestro S, Piattelli A. Tissue reactions, fluids, and bacterial infiltration in implants retrieved at autopsy: A case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:283–6.

Sasada Y, Cochran D. Implant-abutment connections: A review of biologic consequences and peri-implantitis implications. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:1296–307. Available:

Koutouzis T. Implant‐abutment connection as contributing factor to peri‐implant diseases. Periodontol 2000. 2019;81:152–66. Available:

Liu Y, Wang J. Influences of microgap and micromotion of implant–abutment interface on marginal bone loss around implant neck. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;83:153–60. Available:

Assenza B, Tripodi D, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, et al. Bacterial leakage in implants with different implant–abutment connections: An In vitro Study. J Periodontol.2012;83:491–7. Available:

Ferrari Jr S, Han W, Cogo-Müller K, Sendky W, Carvalho R, Kim Y, et al. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of iodoform paste on the contamination of the implant-abutment interface by Porphyromonas gingivalis- an In vitro study. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2021;23:308–13.

da Silva-Neto JP, Prudente MS, Dantas TS, Senna PM, Ribeiro RF, das Neves FD. Microleakage at different implant-abutment connections under unloaded and loaded conditions. Implant Dent. 2017;26(3):388-392. Available:https:// DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000568

Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Assenza B, Leghissa GC, Bonaventura GD, et al. Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. J Periodontol. 2001;72:1146–50.


Romanos GE, Biltucci MT, Kokaras A, Paster BJ. Bacterial composition at the implant-abutment connection under loading In vivo: Bacteria at Implant-Abutment Interface under In vivo Loading Conditions. Clin impl Dent Rel Re.s. 2016;18:138–45. Available:

Sinjari B, D’Addazio G, De Tullio I, Traini T, Caputi S. Peri-Implant bone resorption during healing abutment placement: The effect of a 0.20 % chlorhexidine Gel vs. Placebo—A randomized double blind controlled human study. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:1–13. Available:

Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y, Matsumura H. Marginal fit and microgaps of implant-abutment interface with internal anti-rotation configuration. Dent Mater J. 2008;27:29–34. Available:

Mombelli A, Décaillet F. The characteristics of biofilms in peri-implant disease: Biofilms in peri-implant disease. J Clin Periodontol. 2011;38:203–13. Available:

de Sousa CA, Taborda MBB, Momesso GAC, Rocha EP, dos Santos PH, Santiago-Júnior JF, et al. Materials sealing preventing biofilm formation in implant/abutment joints: Which Is the most effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Implantol. 2020;46:163–71. Available:

Huacho PMM, Nogueira MNM, Basso FG, Jafelicci Junior M, Francisconi RS, Spolidorio DMP. Analyses of biofilm on implant abutment surfaces coating with diamond-like carbon and biocompatibility. Braz Dent J. 2017;28:317–23.


Mao Z, Beuer F, Wu D, Zhu Q, Yassine J, Schwitalla A, Schmidt F. Microleakage along the implant-abutment interface: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Int J Implant Dent. 2023;21:9(1):34. Available:https://doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00494-y

Ricomini Filho AP, Fernandes FS de F, Straioto FG, Silva WJ da, Del Bel Cury AA. Preload loss and bacterial penetration on different implant-abutment connection systems. Braz Dent J. 2010;21:123–9.


Ozdiler A, Bakir-Topcuoglu N, Kulekci G, Isik-Ozkol G. Effects of taper angle and sealant agents on bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface: An In vitro study under loaded conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33: 1071–7. Available:

D’Ercole S, Scarano A, Perrotti V, Mulatinho J, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, et al. Implants with internal hexagon and conical implant-abutment connections: An In vitro study of the bacterial contamination. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40:30–4.


do Nascimento C, Barbosa RES, Issa JPM, Watanabe E, Ito IY, Albuquerque RF. Bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of premachined or cast components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008;37:177–80.


do Nascimento C, Miani PK, Pedrazzi V, Gonçalves RB, Ribeiro RF, Faria ACL, et al. Leakage of saliva through the implant-abutment interface: In vitro evaluation of three different implant connections under unloaded and loaded conditions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:551–60.

Laleman I, Lambert F. Implant connection and abutment selection as a predisposing and/or precipitating factor for peri‐implant diseases: A review. Clin Implant Dent Rel Res. 2023;25:723–33. Available:

Yu P, Zhi Li, Tan X, Yu H. Effect of sealing gel on the microleakage resistance and mechanical behavior during dynamic loading of 3 implant systems. J Prosthetic Dent. 2022;127:308–17. Available:

Cieplik F, Jakubovics NS, Buchalla W, Maisch T, Hellwig E, Al-Ahmad A. Resistance toward chlorhexidine in oral bacteria – Is there cause for concern? Front Microbiol. 2019;10:587. Available:

Pedrazzi V, Escobar EC, Cortelli JR, Haas AN, Andrade AKPD, Pannuti CM, et al. Antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an adjunct method in peri-implant biofilm control. Braz Oral Res. 2014; 28. Available: