Dataset Information

Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%).

Conclusions

Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success.

Trial registry

https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.

SUBMITTER: Hentenaar DFM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9299917 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA variety of interventions have been explored in the non-surgical management of peri-implantitis. In spite of extensive testing of various study protocols, effective treatments largely remain unavailable. The objective of the present 12-month single-centre, examiner-masked, randomized controlled clinical trial was to explore whether a low-abrasive erythritol air-polishing system produces added clinical benefit when used adjunctive to conventional non-surgical management of peri-implantitis and to record any associated patient-centered outcomes.MethodsForty-three patients with mild to severe peri-implantitis including at least one implant either received ultrasonic/curette subgingival instrumentation and erythritol air-polishing (test) or ultrasonic/curette instrumentation only (control) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), dental plaque, suppuration (SUP), crestal bone level (CBL), and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PCF) were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were collected immediately following subgingival interventions at all time-points.ResultsA reduction in PD was observed from baseline to 6 months for the test (p = 0.006) and control (p < 0.001) and from baseline to 12 months for the control (p < 0.001). No intergroup differences were observed for primary outcome variables PD or CBL over time (p > 0.05). At 6 months, a intergroup difference in PCF was observed in favor of the test (p = 0.042). Moreover, a reduction in SUP from baseline to 6 and 12 months was observed in the test (p = 0.019). Overall, patients in the control group experienced less pain/discomfort compared with the test (p < 0.05), females reporting more pain/discomfort than males (p = 0.005).ConclusionsThis study confirms that conventional non-surgical management of peri-implantitis produces limited clinical improvement. It is shown that an erythritol air-polishing system may not produce added clinical benefits when used adjunctive to conventional non-surgical management. In other words, neither approach effectively resolved peri-implantitis. Moreover, the erythritol air-polishing system produced added pain/discomfort particularly in female patients.Trial registrationThe clinical trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with registration NCT04152668 (05/11/2019).

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the potential benefit of the use of a bone substitute material in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis.MethodsIn this multicenter randomized clinical trial, 138 patients (147 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated surgically, randomized by coin toss to either a control (access flap surgery) or a test group (reconstructive surgery using bone substitute material). Clinical assessments, including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP) as well as soft tissue recession (REC), were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Marginal bone levels (MBL), measured on intra-oral radiographs, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline and 12 months. No blinding to group allocation was performed. The primary outcome at 12 months was a composite measure including (i) implant not lost, (ii) absence of BOP/SOP at all aspects, (iii) PPD ≤5 mm at all aspects and (iv) ≤1 mm recession of mucosal margin on the buccal aspect of the implant. Secondary outcomes included (i) changes of MBL, (ii) changes of PPD, BOP%, and buccal KM, (iii) buccal REC and (iv) patient-reported outcomes.ResultsDuring follow-up, four implants (one in the test group, three in the control group) in four patients were removed due to disease progression. At 12 months, a total of 69 implants in the test and 68 implants in the control group were examined. Thus, 16.4% and 13.5% of implants in the test and control group, respectively, met all predefined criteria of the composite outcome. PPD reduction and MBL gain were 3.7 mm and about 1.0 mm in both groups. Reduction in mean BOP% varied between 45% (test) and 50% (control), without significant differences between groups. Buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group (M = 0.7, SD = 0.9 mm) when compared to controls (M = 1.1, SD = 1.5 mm). PROs were favorable in both groups without significant differences. One case of allergic reaction to the antibiotic therapy was recorded. No other adverse events were noted.ConclusionsSurgical therapy of peri-implantitis effectively improved the clinical and radiographic status at 12 months. While the use of a bone substitute material did not improve reductions of PPD and BOP, buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.

Project description:AimThe present multi-centre randomized clinical trial with 12 months of follow-up aimed at studying the added effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.Materials and methodsForty-two patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited. After a behavioural intervention phase including oral hygiene instructions, patients were randomized to either receiving supra- and sub-marginal instrumentation on their affected implants (control group: 21 patients and 29 implants) or only supra-marginal instrumentation (test group: 21 patients and 24 implants), before undergoing surgery. Changes in the deepest probing pocket depth (PPD) with respect to baseline and a composite outcome of treatment success (no implant loss, no bone loss > 0.5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration on probing [BoP/SoP], and PPD ≤ 5 mm) at the 12-month examination were regarded as the primary outcomes of the trial.ResultsAt the 12-month examination, changes in the deepest PPD with respect to baseline amounted to -2.96 mm in the control group and to -3.11 mm in the test one (MD = -0.16; SE = 0.56; p = .769), while 21.4% of the implants in the control group and 33.3% in the test group presented treatment success (OR = 1.83; SE = 1.15; p = .338). With the exception of a longer non-surgical treatment duration in the control group (differences in = -14.29 min; SE = 2.91; p < .001), no other secondary (e.g., soft-tissue recession, keratinized mucosa height, and bone level changes, as well as BoP, SoP, profuse bleeding and implant loss rates) or exploratory (i.e., early wound healing, aesthetics, surgical and total treatment duration, surgery difficulty, intra-operative bleeding, and adverse events) outcome demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups.ConclusionsThe present multi-centre randomized clinical trial did not demonstrate an added effect of performing sub-marginal instrumentation 6 weeks before the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Larger clinical trials are however needed to confirm the present findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03620331).

Project description:BackgroundDue to complex morphology and limited access, the cleaning of the furcation area is extremely challenging. Therefore, novel therapeutic approaches need to be tested to potentially overcome debridement limitations. The aim of the present prospective 12-month study was to compare clinical and microbiological effects following erythritol air-polishing versus conventional mechanical debridement of furcation defects in a cohort of periodontal maintenance patients.MethodsTwenty patients with grade II mandibular molar furcation defects volunteered to enroll in this single-centre, examiner masked, randomized controlled trial. In a split-mouth study design, two furcation sites in each patient were randomly assigned to either receive subgingival debridement using erythritol air-polishing (test) or conventional ultrasonic/curette debridement (control) at baseline, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Probing depth, clinical attachment level and bleeding on probing were recorded at 3-month intervals. Subgingival microbiological samples obtained at baseline, 6 and 12 months were analyzed using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Discomfort from treatment was scored at 12 months using a visual analogue scale. The differences between treatments, and time-points, were tested using multilevel analysis (mixed effect models and robust variance estimates).ResultsA significant reduction in probing depth took place following both treatments (p < 0.001). Control sites experienced a significant mean gain in clinical attachment level of 0.5 mm (± 0.2) (p = 0.004), whereas a non-significant gain of 0.4 mm (± 0.3) was observed at test sites (p = 0.119). At 6 months, a significant between-treatment difference of 0.8 mm (± 0.4) was observed in favor of the control (p = 0.032). No significant between-treatment differences were observed in microbial load or composition. Notably, at 12 months patients experienced significantly less discomfort following air-polishing compared with control (p = 0.001).ConclusionsThe 12-month observations indicate that erythritol air-polishing and conventional mechanical debridement both support clinical improvements. A significant between-treatment difference in clinical attachment level was, however, detected in favour of control debridement at 6 months. In terms of patient comfort, erythritol air-polishing is superior.Trial registrationThe clinical trial was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrial.gov with registration NCT04493398 (07/28/2020).