Clinical outcomes and associated factors in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, combining mechanical debridement and prosthesis modification: A 30-month follow-up prospective case series.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcome and the associated factors of a treatment protocol for peri-implant mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were evaluated 30 months after a treatment protocol including professional mechanical debridement and modification of the prosthesis contours to improve access for biofilm control. Clinical performance was assessed by means of probing with an electronic pressure-calibrated periodontal probe. The possible impact of implant- and patient-level factors on the changes in peri-implant mucosal inflammation measured with the modified bleeding index (mBI) was evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty patients and 61 implants were included in the analysis. At the final visit, 50% of the patients presented bleeding on probing, with a mean mBI of 0.22 (SD 0.27). The adjusted linear regression model showed a significant association between patient's compliance with supportive care visits (p = .006) and mucosal inflammation. Similarly, at the implant level, modified plaque index (p < .001) and an irregular use of interdental brushes (p = .017) had a significant impact on final mBI. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis modification when needed in association with non-surgical treatment may be an important intervention in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Compliance with supportive care visits and the regular use of inter-dental brushes were identified as important factors to achieve mucosal inflammation control.

Adjunctive effect of modifying the implant-supported prosthesis in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

AIM: To evaluate the adjunctive effect of modifying the implant-supported prosthesis to facilitate access to oral hygiene when treating peri-implant mucositis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 6-month randomized clinical trial was designed. Patients with peri-implant mucositis were treated by implant surface debridement with plastic curettes and a plastic tipped ultrasonic device. Then, they were randomly assigned to either modifying their prosthesis to allow for better oral hygiene (test group) or not (control group). Subsequently in both groups, individualized oral hygiene instructions were provided. Clinical and radiographical outcomes were evaluated at baseline and 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: 48 patients were included, and 45 completed the clinical trial (24 test and 21 control patients). After 6 months, changes in the modified bleeding index between the control and test groups were 0.50 (standard deviation -SD = 0.70) and 1.14 (SD = 0.96), respectively (p = 0.01). The changes in implant probing pocket depth at 6 months were -0.02 (SD = 0.61) and 0.31 (SD = 1.20) mm, respectively (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Modifying the contour of the prostheses to improve access for oral hygiene significantly improved the clinical outcomes after standard mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis.