4.5 Article

Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a randomised controlled clinical trial

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 237-241

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x

关键词

anti-infective treatment; chlorhexidine; non-surgical debridement; oral hygiene; peri-implant mucositis; RCT

资金

  1. International Team of Implantology (ITI) [341-2004]
  2. Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Materials and methods Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months. Results At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment. Conclusions Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins. To cite this article:Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Salvi GE, Botticelli D, Mombelli A, Faddy M, Lang NP, On Behalf of the Implant Complication Research Group (ICRG). Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a randomised controlled clinical trial.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22, 2011; 237-241.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据