Effect of a single initial phase of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: Abrasive air polishing versus ultrasounds. A prospective randomized controlled clinical study

Abstract

Background Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis includes a correct mechanical debridement of the implant surface to reduce the inflammation and recondition the soft tissues. The aim of the study was to evaluate the results of a single phase of non-surgical therapy by comparing the effect of curettes and ultrasounds versus curettes and abrasive air polisher (Air-Flow) in the peri-implant tissue conditions, and patient satisfaction. Material and Methods A double-blind randomized and controlled prospective clinical study was conducted on patients in peri-implant maintenance phase diagnosed of peri-implantitis treated in the Oral Surgery Unit of the Stomatology Department of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry of the University of Valencia, between September of 2017 and May of 2018. They were divided into 2 groups: Group 1: curettes and ultrasounds, and Group 2: curettes and Air-Flow. The clinical and radiological baseline parameters were evaluated after 3-weeks of treatment, as well as patient satisfaction. Results The sample included 34 patients. Group 1 (17 patients, 38 implants) and Group 2 (17 patients, 32 implants). All the variables improved statistically significantly after treatment in both groups, with the exception of recessions and keratinized mucosa and bone loss that did not vary. When comparing both groups, the type of treatment did not influence the majority of the variables, with the exception of the plaque index ( p =0.011) and modified bleeding index from the palatine ( p =0.048), which reduced statistically significant in the group 2, as well as the patient satisfaction which was higher in the group 2 ( p <0.001). Conclusions An initial phase of non-surgical treatment achieves an improvement of the peri-implant clinical parameters, thought the method of debridement used seems not to influence. Key words: Peri-implantitis, peri-implant disease, non-surgical treatment, air-abrasive device, mechanical debridement.

Airflow for initial nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Adequate plaque control 26,28,31,32 At least one dental implant diagnosed by peri‐implantitis 25,26,28,32 At least two contralateral dental implants diagnosed by peri‐implantitis 31 …”

“…Inability to properly measure probing pocket depths due to implant malposition 26 Previous nonsurgical and/or surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis within 3 months prior to initial assessment 25,26,31 Inability to remove prostheses 25 …”

“…Previous nonsurgical and/or surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis within 3 months prior to initial assessment 25,26,31 Inability to remove prostheses 25 Hollow cylinder implants 32 …”

“…The changes in bleeding on probing were reported in four studies. 25,26,28,31 A statistically significant difference in bleeding on probing was observed in favor of airflow group (MD À0.19; 95% CI À0.37 to À0.02; p = 0.03; Figure 4C). In contrast, no statistically significant differences were detected in terms of suppuration on probing (MD À0.49; 95% CI À1.76 to 0.78; p = 0.45;…”

“…and A.A.), nine studies were eligible for full-text review. [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Four studies 27,29,30,33 were subsequently excluded and as a result five studies 25,26,28,31,32 were included in the present review (Table 2). Of the five included studies, two were conducted in the Italy, 28,31 one in Germany, 32 one in Netherlands, 26 and one in Spain.…”