Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Int J Dent Hyg ; 22(4): 982-990, 2024 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38659293

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Peri-implant mucositis is a biofilm-related, reversible inflammatory disease that can evolve into peri-implantitis if not adequately treated. The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of air-abrasive powder as compared to chlorhexidine (CHX) for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and occurrence of peri-implantitis 12 months after treatment. METHODS: In the control group, full-mouth calculus and plaque removal was performed with ultrasound and manual devices, and a 1.0% CHX gel was applied; in the test group, supra- and subgingival biofilm removal was performed using erythritol powder with a dedicated nozzle and calculus removal was performed with ultrasonic instruments if needed. Bleeding and plaque indexes, peri-implant probing depth and tissue level were measured at 1 week, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, while PROMs were evaluated up to 7 days after treatment. RESULTS: Among 80 included implants, 70 were analysed at 12 months follow-up (30 in the test group, 40 in the control group, and 20 subjects). Success rates (implant-level) in terms of bleeding index were significantly different between the test (96.7%) and control group (92.5%); as for PROMs, only taste sensation was significantly better in the test group. The test group was significantly correlated to the smallest changes in peri-implant probing depth between baseline and 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that both treatment strategies are effective. This suggests that the use of air-abrasive powders could be used as an alternative biofilm removal method instead of adjunctive treatments with antiseptics.


Assuntos
Clorexidina , Eritritol , Peri-Implantite , Pós , Humanos , Eritritol/uso terapêutico , Eritritol/administração & dosagem , Masculino , Feminino , Clorexidina/uso terapêutico , Clorexidina/administração & dosagem , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Peri-Implantite/tratamento farmacológico , Biofilmes/efeitos dos fármacos , Resultado do Tratamento , Idoso , Índice Periodontal , Anti-Infecciosos Locais/uso terapêutico , Anti-Infecciosos Locais/administração & dosagem , Implantes Dentários/efeitos adversos , Índice de Placa Dentária , Abrasão Dental por Ar/métodos , Adulto , Cálculos Dentários/terapia
2.
Clin Oral Implants Res ; 34(11): 1267-1277, 2023 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37655744

RESUMO

AIM: To assess the efficacy of Er:YAG laser (ERL) and erythritol powder air-polishing (AP) in addition to the submarginal instrumentation in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least one implant diagnosed with PM were included in the present 6-month randomized clinical trial (RCT). Implants were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups after submarginal instrumentation: AP (test 1 group), ERL (test 2 group) or no adjunctive methods (control group). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction and, complete disease resolution (total absence of BoP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) changes. The patient and the implant were considered the statistical unit. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were enrolled in the study. At each time point, significant BoP and PPD reductions were observed within each group. Intergroup analysis did not show statistically significant differences. Complete disease resolution ranged between 29% and 31%. The logistic regression showed that supramucosal restoration margin, PPD < 4 mm and vestibular keratinized mucosa (KM) significantly influenced the probability to obtain treatment success. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of AP and ERL in PM non-surgical therapy does not seem to provide any significant or clinically relevant benefit in terms of BoP and PPD reductions and complete disease resolution, over the use of submarginal instrumentation alone. Baseline PPD < 4 mm, presence of buccal KM and supramucosal restoration margin may play a role in the complete resolution of PM.


Assuntos
Implantes Dentários , Lasers de Estado Sólido , Mucosite , Peri-Implantite , Humanos , Mucosite/complicações , Pós/uso terapêutico , Eritritol/uso terapêutico , Lasers de Estado Sólido/uso terapêutico , Peri-Implantite/tratamento farmacológico , Resultado do Tratamento
3.
Dent J (Basel) ; 8(3)2020 Jul 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32727061

RESUMO

Peri-implantitis is one of the most important biological complication of dental implants. It has inflammatory nature, proved association with plaque accumulation in peri-implant tissues, and can be progressive on background of several factors, like comorbidity factors and bad habits. The prophylaxis and different methods of treatment were discussed during last 30 years, and surgical and nonsurgical techniques have their foes, benefits, and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the case series of various nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis with the use of protocols based on the application of local antibiotics (doxycycline, lincomycin, and erythromycin), mechanical and chemical debridement of dental implant surface, and mini-invasive regenerative technique with injections of bovine collagen. All these three cases demonstrated good results with the maintenance of bone level and absence of clinical signs of inflammation for at least a year according to the X-ray imaging (bone defect volume) and clinic assessments (probing depth, bleeding or suppuration, mucosa color, and pain presence).

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA