4.6 Article

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without a deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a native bilayer collagen membrane: A randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 10, Pages 1312-1321

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13513

Keywords

bone augmentation; bone substitute; deproteinized bovine bone mineral; native bilayer collagen membrane; peri-implantitis; surgical treatment

Funding

  1. Research Foundation at Kristianstad University
  2. Geistlich Pharma AG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The use of DBBM and NBCM in addition to surgical debridement led to significantly more defect fill compared to debridement alone, but there were no significant differences in other clinical parameters or patient-reported outcomes between the two groups.
Aim To assess whether the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) improved healing of peri-implantitis-related bone defects at 12 months. Materials and methods In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received surgical debridement (control group [CG]), and 34 received adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), recession (REC), cytokines (IL-1 beta, IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IP10, PDGF-BB, TNF-alpha, VEGF), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Results RDF at the deepest site amounted 2.7 +/- 1.3 mm in TG and 1.4 +/- 1.2 mm in CG (p <.0001). PPD was reduced by 1.9 mm in TG and 2.3 mm in CG (p = .5783). There were no significant differences between groups regarding reductions of BOP, SUP, REC, cytokines levels, or oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 scores at 12 months. Successful treatment (RDF >= 1.0 mm, PPD <= 5 mm, <= 1/4 site with BOP grade 1, no SUP) was identified in 32% in TG and 21% in CG. Conclusions DBBM and NBCM resulted in significantly more RDF than debridement alone. No difference was found in any clinical parameters or PROs between the groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375750.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available