This umbrella review was conducted to assess the existing literature and scientific evidence on air powder water jet technology (APWJT) in periodontal and peri-implantitis therapy. A systematic literature search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the last decade on the use of APWJT in periodontitis and implant patients was performed in the databases of MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus. An additional hand search on PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted. Ten articles that fit the inclusion criteria were selected after the full-text screening. Two systematic reviews, including one with a meta-analysis, investigated the use of APWJT in active periodontal therapy. The use of APWJT as an adjunct to conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) in active periodontal treatment showed improved results in the test group. Six articles, including two with a meta-analysis, reported on the use of APWJT as a stand-alone therapy or as an adjunct in supportive periodontal therapy. Similarly significant improved results were reported for the use of APWJT. Regarding the active treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, four systematic reviews could not show an improved clinical outcome when APWJT was used as an adjunct to conventional treatment measures. Furthermore, one article investigated APWJT as a stand-alone therapy or as an adjunct in supportive peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis therapy. In systematic reviews that also investigated patient perception, APWJT was generally well-tolerated by the patient. Within the limitations of this umbrella review, it can be concluded that the use of APWJT with low-abrasive powders such as glycine, erythritol or trehalose as an adjunct in active periodontitis therapy shows similar clinical results compared to conventional SRP alone. In surgical peri-implantitis treatment, APWJT can be used adjunctively. It could be considered that the use of APWJT in supportive periodontal treatment results in a comparable clinical outcome and an enhanced patient perception, as well as a shorter clinical time.

Inflammatory periodontal and peri-implant diseases follow dysbiotic shifts in a susceptible host. A well-established tool for microbial sample collection is the use of paper points. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the use of interdental brushes compared to paper points. Biofilm samples were collected with paper points and later interdental brushes from ten patients. Five patients were represented with a community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN) of 0–2 around the teeth and an implant with PPD ≤ 5 mm and no radiological bone loss. The remaining five patients had a CPITN ≥ 3 and one implant with peri-implantitis. Microbial samples were analyzed with quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and next-generation sequencing (NGS). The results showed higher amounts of DNA in samples taken by interdental brushes but also higher Ct values. Both methods detected Filifactor alocis, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola in the majority of samples, while Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans was rarely found. A microbial dysbiosis index showed comparable or higher values in sites with no periodontitis/peri-implantitis with interdental brushes. The results of this pilot study indicate that interdental brushes might be a valid technique for microbial sampling and particularly advantageous in the early detection of dysbiotic shifts around teeth and implants. Larger studies with more participants are needed to validate the proposed microbial sampling method with interdental brushes.

No abstract