Volume 31, Issue S20 p. 27
ABSTRACTS
Free Access

Air-polishing versus ultrasonic debridement in NO-surgical peri-implantitis treatment; a RCT

Diederik Hentenaar

Diederik Hentenaar

UMCG Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Yvonne De Waal

Yvonne De Waal

CTM/UMCG Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff

Arie Jan Van Winkelhoff

CTM/UMCG Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Henny Meijer

Henny Meijer

UMCG Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Gerry Raghoebar

Gerry Raghoebar

UMCG Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 05 October 2020
Citations: 1

QMWCY ORAL COMMUNICATION CLINICAL RESEARCH – PERI-IMPLANT BIOLOGY

Background: NO-surgical peri-implantitis treatment modalities are unpredictable in their treatment outcome. A beneficial treatment might be the use of an air-polisher. In vitro studies show promising results in removing the biofilm without adversely affect the biocompatibility of the implant surface1,2,3. The clinical effect of air-polishing in the NO-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is unclear since only a few studies have been performed4, mainly with small groups and various designs5.

Aim/Hypothesis: The aim of this single-blINDIAd randomized controlled trial was to investigate the clinical, radiographical and microbiological effectiveness of air-polishing, with erythritol powder containing 0.3% chlorhexidine, in the NO-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis compared to ultrasonic debridement.

Materials and Methods: Eighty patients (139 implants) with peri-implantitis (pocket depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥ 2 mm and bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP)) were included and randomized into two groups. Test group patients were treated with an air-polisher (PERIOFLOW®, EMS) and erythritol powder (PLUS® powder). Control group patients were treated with an ultrasonic device (PIEZON®, EMS). Instruction on the additional use of interdental brushes with 0.12% chlorhexidine gel was given in both groups. The remaining dentition was cleaned using an ultrasonic device and/or hand instrumentation. The primary outcome was BoP (% of implant sites). Secondary outcomes were mean PD, SoP (%), plaque score (%), MBL and microbiological parameters. Examinations were performed at baseline and 3 months after therapy. Data were analyzed with SPSS statistical software.

Results: Four patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 76 patients with 133 implants available for analysis. At 3 month evaluation, no significant differences were found between both groups for any of the clinical, radiographical and microbiological parameters. A significant reduction in BoP and PPD was found within both groups (BoP reduced from 59.5% to 49.8%, P = 0.011 in the test group compared to 56.0% to 48.1%, P = 0.051 in the control group; PPD reduced from 4.79 mm ± 1.19 to 4.38 mm ± 1.28, P < 0.001 in the test group compared to 4.98 mm ± 1.49 to 4.75 mm ± 1.78, P = 0.036 in the control group). No differences for plaque scores or SoP were found. Nor radiographical or microbiological differences were found within both groups. In 18% of all patients (14 patients (4 test/10 control) having 23 implants (5 test/18 control), treatment was considered so successful (no bleeding peri-implant pocket ≥ 5 mm) that no further surgical treatment was required at 3 month evaluation.

Conclusions and Clinical Implications: NO-surgical peri-implantitis treatment using PERIOFLOW® (EMS) therapy with PLUS® powder (EMS) does not lead to improved clinical, radiographical or microbiological outcomes compared to PIEZON® (EMS) therapy 3 months after therapy. For a small amount of patients a NO-surgical treatment may be beneficial in such a way that no further surgical treatment is required. A surgical peri-implantitis procedure should therefore always be proceeded by a NO-surgical treatment phase.

Keywords: Peri-implantitis, NO-surgical, Therapy, clinical trial, microbiology.

    The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.