Christel Lindahl

Mechanical non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: a double‐blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results

BACKGROUND Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding in patients with dental implants. The present study compared two non-surgical mechanical debridement methods of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS Thirty-seven subjects (mean age 61.5; S.D+/-12.4), with one implant each, demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized, and those treated either with titanium hand-instruments or with an ultrasonic device were enrolled. Data were obtained before treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Parametric and non-parametric statistics were used. RESULTS Thirty-one subjects completed the study. The mean bone loss at implants in both groups was 1.5 mm (SD +/-1.2 mm). No group differences for plaque or gingival indices were found at any time point. Baseline and 6-month mean probing pocket depths (PPD) at implants were 5.1 and 4.9 mm (p=0.30) in both groups. Plaque scores at treated implants decreased from 73% to 53% (p<0.01). Bleeding scores also decreased (p<0.01), with no group differences. No differences in the total bacterial counts were found over time. Higher total bacterial counts were found immediately after treatment (p<0.01) and at 1 week for ultrasonic-treated implants (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS No group differences were found in the treatment outcomes. While plaque and bleeding scores improved, no effects on PPD were identified.

Treatment of peri‐implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air‐abrasive device: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.

Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a single-blinded randomized longitudinal clinical study. II. Microbiological results.

BACKGROUND Peri-implantitis is common in patients with dental implants. We performed a single-blinded longitudinal randomized study to assess the effects of mechanical debridement on the peri-implant microbiota in peri-implantitis lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS An expanded checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization assay encompassing 79 different microorganisms was used to study bacterial counts before and during 6 months following mechanical treatment of peri-implantitis in 17 cases treated with curettes and 14 cases treated with an ultrasonic device. Statistics included non-parametric tests and GLM multivariate analysis with p<0001 indicating significance and 80% power. RESULTS At selected implant test sites, the most prevalent bacteria were: Fusobacterium nucleatum sp., Staphylococci sp., Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Helicobacter pylori, and Tannerella forsythia. 30 min. after treatment with curettes, A. actinomycetemcomitans (serotype a), Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus anginosus, and Veillonella parvula were found at lower counts (p<0.001). No such differences were found for implants treated with the ultrasonic device. Inconsistent changes occurred following the first week. No microbiological differences between baseline and 6-month samples were found for any species or between treatment study methods in peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS Both methods failed to eliminate or reduce bacterial counts in peri-implantitis. No group differences were found in the ability to reduce the microbiota in peri-implantitis.

Microbiologic Results After Non-Surgical Erbium-Doped:Yttrium, Aluminum, and Garnet Laser or Air-Abrasive Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study is to assess clinical and microbiologic effects of the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis lesions using either an erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser or an air-abrasive subgingival polishing method. METHODS In a 6-month clinical trial, 42 patients with peri-implantitis were treated at one time with an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device. Routine clinical methods were used to monitor clinical conditions. Baseline and 6-month intraoral radiographs were assessed with a software program. The checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method was used to assess 74 bacterial species from the site with the deepest probing depth (PD) at the implant. Non-parametric tests were applied to microbiology data. RESULTS PD reductions (mean ± SD) were 0.9 ± 0.8 mm and 0.8 ± 0.5 mm in the laser and air-abrasive groups, respectively (not significant). No baseline differences in bacterial counts between groups were found. In the air-abrasive group, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus anaerobius were found at lower counts at 1 month after therapy (P <0.001) and with lower counts in the laser group for Fusobacterium nucleatum naviforme (P = 0.002), and Fusobacterium nucleatum nucleatum (P = 0.002). Both treatments failed to reduce bacterial counts at 6 months. Porphyromonas gingivalis counts were higher in cases with progressive peri-implantitis (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS At 1 month, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and S. anaerobius were reduced in the air-abrasive group, and Fusobacterium spp. were reduced in the laser group. Six-month data demonstrated that both methods failed to reduce bacterial counts. Clinical improvements were limited.

Long‐term stability of surgical bone regenerative procedures of peri‐implantitis lesions in a prospective case–control study over 3 years

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the extent of bone fill over 3 years following the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with bone grafting with or without a membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS In a non-submerged wound-healing mode, 15 subjects with 27 implants were treated with a bone substitute (Algipore(®)) alone and 17 subjects with 29 implants were treated with the bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (Osseoquest(®)). Implants with radiographic bone loss ≥1.8 mm following the first year in function and with bleeding and/or pus on probing were included. Following surgery, subjects were given systemic antibiotics (10 days) and rinsed with chlorhexidine. After initial healing, the subjects were enrolled in a strict maintenance programme. RESULTS Statistical analysis failed to demonstrate changes in bone fill between 1 and 3 years both between and within procedure groups. The mean defect fill at 3 years was 1.3 ± (SD) 1.3 mm if treated with the bone substitute alone and 1.6 ± (SD) 1.2 mm if treated with an adjunct resorbable membrane, (p=0.40). The plaque index decreased from approximately 40-10%, remaining stable during the following 2 years. CONCLUSION Defect fill using a bone substitute with or without a membrane technique in the treatment of peri-implantitis can be maintained over 3 years.

Clinical and microbiological analysis of subjects treated with Brånemark or AstraTech implants: a 7‐year follow‐up study

AIMS To assess the impact of different implant systems on the clinical conditions and the microbiota at implants, and whether the presence of bacteria at tooth sites was predictive of the presence at implant sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS Subjects with either AstraTech or Brånemark in function for 7 years were enrolled. Sub-gingival bacterial samples at tooth and implant sites were collected with sterile endodontic paper points, and analyzed by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method (40 species). RESULTS Fifty-four subjects, 27 supplied with AstraTech (n=132 implants) and 27 with Brånemark (n=102) implants, were studied. Test tooth sites had significantly less evidence of bleeding on probing (P<0.001) and presence of plaque (P<0.001) than implant test sites. Implant sites presented with deeper probing pocket depth than tooth sites (mean difference: 1.1 mm, standard error of differences: 0.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.9-1.3, P<0.001). Tannerella forsythia (P<0.05), Capnocytophaga sputigena (P<0.05), Actinomyces israelii (P<0.05) and Lactobacillus acidophilus (P<0.05) were found at higher levels at tooth surfaces. No differences in bacterial load for any species were found between the two implant systems. The odds of being present/absent at tooth and implants sites were only significant for Staphylococcus aureus [odds ratio (OR): 5.2 : 1, 95% CI: 1.4-18.9, P<0.01]. CONCLUSIONS After 7 years in function, implants presented with deeper probing depths than teeth. S. aureus was commonly present at both teeth and implants sites. S. aureus at tooth sites was predictive of also being present at implant sites.

Short-Term Effects of an Anti-Inflammatory Treatment on Clinical Parameters and Serum Levels of C-Reactive Protein and Proinflammatory Cytokines in Subjects With Periodontitis

BACKGROUND Periodontal disease is the most common multifactorial disease, afflicting a very large proportion of the adult population. Periodontal disease secondarily causes increases in the serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and other markers of inflammation. An increased level of CRP reflects an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of the current randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the short-term effect of a combination of dipyridamole and prednisolone (CRx-102) on the levels of high-sensitivity (hs)-CRP, proinflammatory markers in blood, and clinical signs of periodontal disease. METHODS Fifty-seven patients with >/=10 pockets with probing depths >/=5 mm were randomized into two groups in this masked single-center placebo-controlled study: CRx-102 (n = 28) and placebo (n = 29). hs-CRP levels, inflammatory markers (interleukin [IL]-6, -1beta, -8, and -12, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interferon-gamma [IFN-gamma]), bleeding on probing (BOP), and changes in probing depths were evaluated. The subjects received mechanical non-surgical therapy after 42 days, and the study was completed after 49 days. RESULTS At day 42, the differences in the hs-CRP, IFN-gamma, and IL-6 levels between the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05), whereas no difference was found for the other inflammatory markers. There was no change in probing depth or BOP between the two groups. CONCLUSION The administration of CRx-102 resulted in significant decreases in hs-CRP, IFN-gamma, and IL-6, but it did not significantly change BOP or probing depths.

Surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a 5‐year follow‐up

AIM To compare two regenerative surgical treatments for peri-implantitis over 5 years. MATERIAL & METHODS Twenty-five individuals with peri-implantitis remained at study endpoint. They were treated with a bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (13 individuals with 23 implants) [Group 1], or with bone substitute alone (12 individuals with 22 implants) [Group 2]. All study individuals were kept on a strict maintenance programme every third month. RESULTS Five-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements in both groups. No implants were lost due to progression of peri-implantitis. Probing depths were reduced by 3.0 ± 2.4 mm in Group 1, and 3.3 ± 2.09 mm in Group 2 (NS). In both groups, radiographic evidence of bone gain was significant (p < 0.001). At year 5, the average defect fill was 1.3 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) in Group 1 and 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.2 mm) in Group 2 (mean diff; 0.4 95% CI -0.3, 1.2, p = 0.24). Bleeding on probing decreased in both groups. Baseline and year 5 plaque scores did not differ between groups and was reduced from 50% to 15%. CONCLUSION Both procedures resulted in stable conditions. Additional use of a membrane does not improve the outcome.

Treatment of peri-implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device

BACKGROUND Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.

Treatment of peri-implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device: a randomized clinical trial: Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.