Premium
Surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a 5‐year follow‐up
Author(s) -
RoosJansåker AnnMarie,
Persson Gösta Rutger,
Lindahl Christel,
Renvert Stefan
Publication year - 2014
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/jcpe.12308
Subject(s) - peri implantitis , medicine , dentistry , radiography , bleeding on probing , surgery , implant , periodontitis
Aim To compare two regenerative surgical treatments for peri‐implantitis over 5 years. Material & Methods Twenty‐five individuals with peri‐implantitis remained at study endpoint. They were treated with a bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (13 individuals with 23 implants) [Group 1], or with bone substitute alone (12 individuals with 22 implants) [Group 2]. All study individuals were kept on a strict maintenance programme every third month. Results Five‐year follow‐up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements in both groups. No implants were lost due to progression of peri‐implantitis. Probing depths were reduced by 3.0 ± 2.4 mm in Group 1, and 3.3 ± 2.09 mm in Group 2 (NS). In both groups, radiographic evidence of bone gain was significant ( p < 0.001). At year 5, the average defect fill was 1.3 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) in Group 1 and 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.2 mm) in Group 2 (mean diff; 0.4 95% CI −0.3, 1.2, p = 0.24). Bleeding on probing decreased in both groups. Baseline and year 5 plaque scores did not differ between groups and was reduced from 50% to 15%. Conclusion Both procedures resulted in stable conditions. Additional use of a membrane does not improve the outcome.