Premium
Treatment of peri‐implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air‐abrasive device: a randomized clinical trial
Author(s) -
Renvert Stefan,
Lindahl Christel,
Roos Jansåker AnnMarie,
Persson G. Rutger
Publication year - 2011
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.2010.01646.x
Subject(s) - medicine , peri implantitis , er:yag laser , dentistry , randomized controlled trial , univariate analysis , bleeding on probing , laser , nuclear medicine , surgery , periodontitis , multivariate analysis , implant , physics , optics
Renvert S, Lindahl C, Roos Jansåker A‐M, Persson R. Treatment of peri‐implantitis using Er:YAG laser or an air‐abrasive device: a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2011; 38: 65–73. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐051X.2010.01646.x Abstract Background: Non‐surgical peri‐implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air‐abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono‐therapy in cases with severe peri‐implantitis. Materials and methods: Twenty‐one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air‐abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. Results: No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups ( p <0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ±0.5), with mean bone‐level changes (loss) of −0.1 mm (SD ±0.8) and −0.3 mm (SD ±0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction 0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. Conclusions: The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri‐implantitis.