Premium
Efficacy of mechanical debridement with adjunctive probiotic therapy in the treatment of peri‐implant mucositis in cigarette‐smokers and never‐smokers
Author(s) -
Alqahtani Fawaz,
Alqahtani Mana,
Shafqat Syed S.,
Akram Zohaib,
AlKheraif Abdulaziz A.,
Javed Fawad
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12795
Subject(s) - medicine , mucositis , bleeding on probing , dentistry , post hoc analysis , implant , analysis of variance , gastroenterology , surgery , periodontitis , chemotherapy
Background Efficacy of mechanical debridement (MD) with adjunctive probiotic therapy (PT) in the treatment of peri‐implant mucositis (PiM) in cigarette‐smoking and never‐smoking subjects remains uninvestigated. Purpose The aim was to assess the efficacy of MD with adjunctive PT in the treatment of PiM in cigarette‐smoking and never‐smoking individuals. Materials and Methods Patients with (group I) and without PiM (group II) were included. Demographic data was collected using a questionnaire. Treatment‐wise, patients in groups I and II were subdivided into: (a) Patients that underwent MD with adjunct PT (using Lactobacillus reuteri ); and (b) MD alone. In all groups, probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured at baseline and compared after 3‐ and 6‐months. Baseline peri‐implant crestal bone levels were also measured. Sample‐size estimation was performed, and statistical comparisons were done using one‐way analysis of variance and Bonferroni post‐hoc adjustment tests. P values under .05 were deemed significant. Results Eighty individuals (group I: 40 cigarette‐smokers and group II: 40 never‐smokers) with PiM participated in this study. At all‐time intervals, no significant difference in PD, PI, and BOP were observed in all patients in group I. At 3‐months' follow‐up, the differences in BOP ( P < .05), and PI ( P < .05) were significantly higher in group II that underwent MD + PT than MD alone. At 6‐months' follow‐up, there was no difference in the changes in BOP and PI among subjects that underwent MD with and without adjunct PT. Conclusion On a short‐term basis, MD with adjunct PT is more effectual in the treatment of PiM than MD alone in never‐smokers. Cigarette‐smoking compromises peri‐implant soft tissue healing following MD with or without adjunct PT.