Short-term comparison of two non-surgical treatment modalities of peri-implantitis: Clinical and microbiological outcomes in a two-factorial randomized controlled trial
| Autor: | Michele Nieri, Francesco Bernardelli, Marco Merli, Francesco Carinci, Mauro Merli, Giorgia Mariotti, Erica Giulianelli, Giovanpaolo Pini-Prato |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Peri-implantitis
medicine.medical_specialty medicine.medical_treatment law.invention NO 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law Medicine Humans In patient 030212 general & internal medicine Dental Implants dental implant business.industry Non surgical treatment 030206 dentistry Surgery Debridement (dental) dental disinfectants randomized controlled trial Periodontics business peri-implantitis Follow-Up Studies |
| Popis: | AIM To compare the efficacy of two different therapies (amino acid glycine abrasive powder and a desiccant material) and their combination in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was an examiner-blind randomized clinical trial, with 2-factorial design with a follow-up of 6 months. The combination of the two factors resulted in four interventions: (a) non-surgical debridement alone (C); (b) non-surgical debridement and a desiccant material (H); (c) non-surgical debridement and glycine powder (G); and (d) non-surgical debridement, desiccant material and glycine powder (HG). RESULTS Sixty-four patients with peri-implantitis were randomized, 16 for each intervention. After six months, two implants failed in the G intervention. Mean pocket depth reduction was higher in patients treated with the desiccant material (estimated difference: 0.5 mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9 mm, p = .0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1 mm; 95% CI from -0.3 to 0.5 mm, p = .7333). VAS for pain during intervention and VAS for pain after one week were higher for patients treated with glycine powder (p = .0056 and p = .0339, respectively). The success criteria and other variables did not reveal differences between interventions. CONCLUSIONS In this 6-month follow-up study, pocket reduction was more pronounced in patients using the desiccant material. Pain was higher in patients using glycine. All the interventions resulted in low success rate. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|