Premium
The usage of a lactobacilli probiotic in the non‐surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis: A randomized pilot study
Author(s) -
Laleman Isabelle,
Pauwels Martine,
Quirynen Marc,
Teughels Wim
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13555
Subject(s) - lactobacillus reuteri , medicine , bleeding on probing , probiotic , peri implantitis , dentistry , placebo , randomized controlled trial , significant difference , implant , periodontitis , surgery , genetics , alternative medicine , pathology , bacteria , biology
Objectives Examine the clinical and microbiological benefits of a dual‐strain Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic on the non‐surgical therapy of initial peri‐implantitis. Materials and methods This randomized, double‐blind study targeted patients with initial peri‐implantitis, that is peri‐implantitis with a maximum mean probing pocket depth of 6 mm and maximum 3 mm bone loss compared with loading. A full‐mouth prophylaxis was performed and the peri‐implantitis sites were debrided. Subsequently, local application of the study drops was carried out at the peri‐implantitis sites and the study lozenges were handed out. The patients in the probiotic group received drops and lozenges containing L. reuteri (ATCC PTA 5289 & DSM 17938), those in the control group received placebo products. At the implant level the measurements of interest were bleeding, probing pocket depth and plaque. Full‐mouth bleeding and plaque scores were also recorded. Microbiological samples were taken from the tongue, saliva and subgingivally around the implants. Results All clinical parameters were significantly decreased after 12 and 24 weeks. At the implant level the only statistically significant difference was a greater decrease in plaque levels in the probiotic versus the control group ( p = .002 at 24 weeks). At the full‐mouth level, the only intergroup difference was the greater decrease in full‐mouth bleeding on probing sites in the probiotic group compared with the control group ( p < .001 at 24 weeks). Concerning the microbiological outcomes, no significant differences could be found at any time point, neither intra‐ nor intergroup. Conclusions No adjunctive effects of the use of L. reuteri probiotics in the treatment of peri‐implantitis were found.