Aim To compare the efficacy of two different therapies (amino acid glycine abrasive powder and a desiccant material) and their combination in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis. Materials and Methods This was an examiner‐blind randomized clinical trial, with 2‐factorial design with a follow‐up of 6 months. The combination of the two factors resulted in four interventions: (a) non‐surgical debridement alone (C); (b) non‐surgical debridement and a desiccant material (H); (c) non‐surgical debridement and glycine powder (G); and (d) non‐surgical debridement, desiccant material and glycine powder (HG). Results Sixty‐four patients with peri‐implantitis were randomized, 16 for each intervention. After six months, two implants failed in the G intervention. Mean pocket depth reduction was higher in patients treated with the desiccant material (estimated difference: 0.5 mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9 mm, p = .0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1 mm; 95% CI from −0.3 to 0.5 mm, p = .7333). VAS for pain during intervention and VAS for pain after one week were higher for patients treated with glycine powder (p = .0056 and p = .0339, respectively). The success criteria and other variables did not reveal differences between interventions. Conclusions In this 6‐month follow‐up study, pocket reduction was more pronounced in patients using the desiccant material. Pain was higher in patients using glycine. All the interventions resulted in low success rate.

No abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

The null hypothesis of no difference in failure rates, complications and bone level between implants that were loaded immediately or early at 3 years cannot be rejected in this randomized clinical trial.

Objectives: The aim of this short-term double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial was to compare bone augmentation grafting with 100% autogenous bone (AB) or 50% deproteinized bovine bone matrix (DBBM)/ 50% autogenous bone (BOAB) using a guided bone regeneration procedure, the fence technique, in a two-stage implant placement. Material and methods: Partially edentulous patients with extensive three-dimensional osseous defects were included in this study. The main outcome measure was the differences in bone volume from pre-surgery (T1) to 6 months post-surgery (T2). Bone height, chair-time, pain, functional limitation, and complications were also assessed. Results: Fifteen patients were allocated to the AB group and 15 patients to the BOAB group. The difference in bone volume from T1 to T2 was 648 mm 3 for the AB group and 869mm 3 for the BOAB group (difference between groups 221 mm 3 , 95% CI from −363 to 804, p = .442). The surgery pain VAS was 1.6 for the AB group and 2.3 for the BOAB group (difference between groups 0.8, 95% CI from 0.0 to 1.5, p = .045 favoring the AB group). The height difference in bone from T1 to T2 was 2.2 mm for the AB group and 3.7 mm for the BOAB group (difference between groups 1.5mm, 95% CI from 0.1 to 2.9, p = .038 favoring the BOAB group). For complications, chairtime, post-surgery pain, and functional limitation, there were no differences between AB and BOAB. Conclusions: No significant differences, except for surgery pain VAS and difference in bone height, were observed in this trial comparing grafting with AB or BOAB.