Premium
Mechanical non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: a double‐blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results
Author(s) -
Renvert Stefan,
Samuelsson Emelie,
Lindahl Christel,
Persson Gösta. Rutger
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01421.x
Subject(s) - medicine , peri implantitis , dentistry , bleeding on probing , debridement (dental) , implant , randomized controlled trial , surgery , periodontitis
Background: Peri‐implantitis is a frequent finding in patients with dental implants. The present study compared two non‐surgical mechanical debridement methods of peri‐implantitis. Material and Methods: Thirty‐seven subjects (mean age 61.5; S.D±12.4), with one implant each, demonstrating peri‐implantitis were randomized, and those treated either with titanium hand‐instruments or with an ultrasonic device were enrolled. Data were obtained before treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Parametric and non‐parametric statistics were used. Results: Thirty‐one subjects completed the study. The mean bone loss at implants in both groups was 1.5 mm (SD ±1.2 mm). No group differences for plaque or gingival indices were found at any time point. Baseline and 6‐month mean probing pocket depths (PPD) at implants were 5.1 and 4.9 mm ( p =0.30) in both groups. Plaque scores at treated implants decreased from 73% to 53% ( p <0.01). Bleeding scores also decreased ( p <0.01), with no group differences. No differences in the total bacterial counts were found over time. Higher total bacterial counts were found immediately after treatment ( p <0.01) and at 1 week for ultrasonic‐treated implants ( p <0.05). Conclusions: No group differences were found in the treatment outcomes. While plaque and bleeding scores improved, no effects on PPD were identified.