The results of this trial failed to demonstrate superiority of one treatment modality over the other. GTR outcomes in this trial were lower than anticipated based on previous evidence. This was attributed to the high prevalence of post-surgical complications in the GTR group.

No abstract

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.

Tested individually by a group of periodontists, the RES seems to be a reliable method for assessing the esthetic outcomes of root coverage procedures.