4.5 Article

Nonsurgical treatment of moderate and advanced periimplantitis lesions: a controlled clinical study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 279-288

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-006-0070-3

Keywords

dental implant; periimplantitis; nonsurgical treatment; laser/therapeutic use; clinical trial

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this controlled, parallel design clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Er:YAG (erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet) laser for nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis lesions. Twenty patients, each of whom displayed at least one implant with (a) moderate and (b) advanced periimplantitis (n=40 implants; IMZ, ITI, Spline Twist, ZL-Duraplant, Camlog), were randomly instrumented nonsurgically using either (1) an Er:YAG laser (100 mJ/pulse, 10 Hz) device (LAS) or (2) mechanical debridement using plastic curettes and antiseptic therapy with chlorhexidine digluconate (0.2%) (C). The following clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment: plaque index, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth, gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (CAL). Mean BOP improved significantly in both groups at 3, 6, and 12 months (a- lesions: P < 0.001 and b- lesions: P < 0.01, respectively). After 3 and 6 months, the mean reduction of BOP was significantly higher in the LAS group when compared to the C group (a- and b- lesions: P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively). At 3 and 6 months, both groups revealed significant CAL gains at a- and b- lesions (P < 0.01, respectively). In both groups, however, the mean CAL at a- and b- lesions was not significantly different from the respective baseline values at 12 months (P > 0.05, respectively). Although treatment of periimplantitis lesions with LAS resulted in a significantly higher BOP reduction than C, its effectiveness seemed to be limited to a period of 6 months, particularly at b- lesions.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available