Cargando…

Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Aim of the study: This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schlee, Markus, Wang, Hom-Lay, Stumpf, Thomas, Brodbeck, Urs, Bosshardt, Dieter, Rathe, Florian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8397046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441770
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163475
_version_ 1783744525739491328
author Schlee, Markus
Wang, Hom-Lay
Stumpf, Thomas
Brodbeck, Urs
Bosshardt, Dieter
Rathe, Florian
author_facet Schlee, Markus
Wang, Hom-Lay
Stumpf, Thomas
Brodbeck, Urs
Bosshardt, Dieter
Rathe, Florian
author_sort Schlee, Markus
collection PubMed
description Aim of the study: This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration, and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after the replacement of the restoration. Results: The mean PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 were 100%, BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8% and at T3 to 35.3%. Suppuration was found to be at a level of 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. The radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to the implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at mesial sites and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites at T0 and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and the improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8397046
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83970462021-08-28 Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Schlee, Markus Wang, Hom-Lay Stumpf, Thomas Brodbeck, Urs Bosshardt, Dieter Rathe, Florian J Clin Med Article Aim of the study: This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration, and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after the replacement of the restoration. Results: The mean PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 were 100%, BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8% and at T3 to 35.3%. Suppuration was found to be at a level of 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. The radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to the implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at mesial sites and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites at T0 and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and the improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy. MDPI 2021-08-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8397046/ /pubmed/34441770 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163475 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Schlee, Markus
Wang, Hom-Lay
Stumpf, Thomas
Brodbeck, Urs
Bosshardt, Dieter
Rathe, Florian
Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_short Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
title_sort treatment of periimplantitis with electrolytic cleaning versus mechanical and electrolytic cleaning: 18-month results from a randomized controlled clinical trial
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8397046/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34441770
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10163475
work_keys_str_mv AT schleemarkus treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT wanghomlay treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT stumpfthomas treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT brodbeckurs treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT bosshardtdieter treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial
AT ratheflorian treatmentofperiimplantitiswithelectrolyticcleaningversusmechanicalandelectrolyticcleaning18monthresultsfromarandomizedcontrolledclinicaltrial