| Abstrakt: |
Background: The absence of supportive therapy in patients rehabilitated with endosseous implant can lead to peri‐implant inflammation, characterized by mucositis, which is a risk for peri‐implantitis development and implant loss. However, there is a lack of researches bond clinical and biological response after conservative mucositis therapy. The fibroblast growth factor 2 (FGF‐2) has been shown to promote endothelial cell proliferation and mitogenic activity, strictly related to regenerative capacity. Aim/Hypothesis: To analyze the FGF 2 levels in peri‐implant crevicular fluid a long of the peri‐implant mucositis treatment in patients underwent supportive therapy. Material and Methods: Twenty six participants with Branemark protocol prosthesis, in function for at least 1 year, were divided into 2 groups according to initial diagnosis‐ control group (_I_n _i_=_I_ _i_8), characterized by no signals of peri‐implant inflammation, and mucositis group (_I_n _i_=_I_ _i_18), presenting peri‐implant mucositis diagnosis. All participants undergoing clinical peri‐implant (probing depth, bleeding on probing, ceratinized mucosae, plaque, swelling, peri‐implant biotype) and protheses (design, occlusal contact, hygiene access, antagonist) examination, with radiographic analysis, protheses removal and non‐invasive peri‐implant therapy (mechanical debridement associated to chlorhexidine 0.12%), during a period of 3 weeks‐ interval 1 (initial diagnosis and treatment)+ interval 2 (15 days after initial diagnosis)+ interval 3 (21 days after second diagnosis). During all intervals, peri‐implant crevicular fluid samples were collected in order to analyze FGF‐2 levels by immune‐enzymatic assay. Results: Participants from control and mucositis groups showed no difference for age, gender, implant time of function, periodontitis history, implant type, implant system, peri‐implant biotype, antagonist, ceratinized mucosae, plaque. However, along of the treatment intervals, participants were diagnosed in different groups. Interval 1(control, _I_n _i_=_I_ _i_8 + mucositis, _I_n _i_=_I_ _i_18)+ interval 2 (control, _I_n _i_=_I_ _i_18 + mucositis=8)+ interval 3 (control, _I_n _i_=_I_ _i_20 + mucositis, _I_n _i_=_I_ _i_6), becoming evident that the non‐invasive treatment was able to treat peri‐implant mucositis, clinically. There was observed significant difference of FGF‐2 levels, between groups, with higher FGF‐2 level in control group along of the study (_I_P = _i_0.01). After the 3 intervals of treatment, mucositis group showed significant increase of FGF‐2 levels (_I_P _i_<_I_ _i_0.01) compared to initial levels in the same group. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: After 36 days of supportive therapy there was reduction of Peri‐implant mucositis from 70% to 23%. Clinical and laboratory outcomes showed a clear correlation, since FGF‐2 levels increased after 36 days. The Therapy protocol was effective, and promoted a regenerative reaction. FGF‐2 can be considered a future target for peri‐implant mucositis treatment and health maintenance conditions. |
Plný text