2022
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164699
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical, Microbiological, and Biochemical Impact of the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis—A Prospective Case Series

Abstract: Background: The aim of this study, a prospective case series, was to evaluate the clinical, microbiological, and biochemical impact of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: Thirty subjects with diagnosis of peri-implantitis were treated following a surgical protocol including access flaps, surface decontamination with ultrasonics and glycine powder air-polishing, and systemic antibiotics. Disease resolution was defined by the composite outcome including presence of probing depths (PD) ≤5 mm, abs… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 77 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, minimally invasive procedures have been introduced to increase patient post-surgical comfort by atraumatic acts [ 22 , 23 ]. Consequently, many new surgical and nonsurgical treatment methods for peri-implantitis management have been described; some demonstrated statistically significant clinical improvements, although the impacts on microbiological and biochemical parameters are still insufficient [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Therefore, primary prophylaxis of peri-implant diseases is important and can be achieved with correct treatment planning in terms of implant position, the morphologies of soft tissues surrounding the implant, and the proper prosthetic reconstruction [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, minimally invasive procedures have been introduced to increase patient post-surgical comfort by atraumatic acts [ 22 , 23 ]. Consequently, many new surgical and nonsurgical treatment methods for peri-implantitis management have been described; some demonstrated statistically significant clinical improvements, although the impacts on microbiological and biochemical parameters are still insufficient [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Therefore, primary prophylaxis of peri-implant diseases is important and can be achieved with correct treatment planning in terms of implant position, the morphologies of soft tissues surrounding the implant, and the proper prosthetic reconstruction [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Patients were excluded if their periodontal condition was not adequately controlled or if the affected implant presented a vertical peri‐implant defect. Details on the study population and the peri‐implantitis surgical protocol rendered have been previously reported, as well as the 6‐month treatment outcomes (Luengo, Solonko, et al, 2022). In brief, after a pre‐surgical session of standardized oral hygiene instructions (OHI) and non‐surgical instrumentation, patients were treated with a surgical procedure based on access flap and decontamination of the implant surface combining curettes, ultrasonic tips and an air‐polishing device with glycine powder.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sample size calculation was first calculated for the prospective case series (Luengo, Solonko, et al, 2022) based on detecting a desired inter‐group difference of 0.99 mm and a standard deviation (SD) of 0.8 mm in the primary outcome (PD) (Renvert et al, 2008). This resulted in a sample size of 25 subjects, with an α of 0.05 and a power of 99%.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Open flap debridement and resective surgical peri-implantitis approaches demonstrated the improvement of the implant surface decontamination with a significant reduction in inflammatory signs such as bleeding on probing (BOP) and suppuration (SUP) along with decrease in peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In spite of that, these methods did not achieve complete disease remission [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], resulting in different levels of treatment failure or implant loss (20–60%) in the short-term basis. As a result, the treated implant sites remain meagre in the original supporting bone structure causing the reduction of previously achieved implant stability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%