Clinical and radiographic changes at tissue level implants with either a machined or a modified transmucosal neck surface: A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled proof-of-concept study.

BACKGROUND: Surface modification may yield enhanced soft tissue adhesion to transmucosal titanium implant necks. AIM: To evaluate and compare changes in soft tissues around implants with a modified hydrophilic sandblasted and acid-etched neck (mSLA; test) to those with a machined neck (M; control). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants with a diameter of 4.1 mm and a neck height of 1.8 mm were randomly inserted in healed sites with pristine bone of the posterior maxilla or mandible. The modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mSBI) (primary outcome) was assessed at baseline (BL) and 6, 12 and 36 months. Secondary outcomes included the assessment of pocket probing depth (PPD), mucosal recession (REC) and clinical attachment level (CAL). Standardized radiographs were taken at time of implant placement, at BL and after 12 and 36 months. RESULTS: Of the 43 randomized subjects, 38 (19 test and 19 controls) completed the 36-month follow-up. Implant survival rates amounted to 95.5% (test) and 100% (control) (p > .05). At 36 months, 77.6% of test implants and 78.9% of control implants were without any bleeding sites (mSBI = 0; p > .05). The 36-month success rate was 86.4% in the test and 85.7% in the control group, respectively (p > .05). At 36 months, the mean radiographic bone level change from BL was 0.33 ± 0.69 mm at test implants and 0.12 ± 0.3 mm at control implants (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Tissue level implants with a hydrophilic mSLA transmucosal neck failed to yield clinical and radiographic benefits compared with implants with a machined neck up to 3 years.

Subgingival air-polishing with erythritol during periodontal maintenance: randomized clinical trial of twelve months.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate repeated subgingival air-polishing in residual pockets with a new erythritol powder containing 0.3% chlorhexidine. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Single-centre, examiner masked, randomized clinical trial of 12 months with a two-arm, within-subject parallel design. Fifty patients in periodontal maintenance were monitored in 3-month intervals. At months 0, 3, 6 and 9, all sites presenting with a probing depth (PD) >4 mm were subject to subgingival air-polishing (test side) or ultrasonic debridement (control side). The primary endpoint was presence/absence of PD >4 mm after 12 months. RESULTS: Totally 6918 sites were monitored at baseline, 457 of them had a PD >4 mm (range 5-9 mm). The number of pockets >4 mm per subject, PD and bleeding on probing were significantly lower at month 12. Differences between test and control were not significant. There was a significant difference in favour of air-polishing for the perception of pain/discomfort. Differences of frequencies at >1000 and >100,000 cells/ml of six microorganisms between baseline and month 12 were not significant. At month 12, test sites were less frequently positive for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans at >1000 cells/ml than controls, and counts never exceeded 100,000 cells/ml. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated subgingival air-polishing reduced the number of pockets >4 mm similar to ultrasonic debridement. It was safe and induced less pain.

[Subgingival air-polishing: new perspectives for periodontal maintenance?]. / L'aéro-polissage sous-gingival: Nouvelles perspectives pour le maintien parodontal?

After completion of comprehensive periodontal therapy, the main objective is to maintain gingival tissues in a clinically healthy state. Traditional methods like curettes and ultrasonic devices used during maintenance are responsible of irreversible hard tissue damages ensuing from repeated mechanical scraping of tooth surfaces. A new approach to clean root surfaces without inducing these damages may be the air-polishing technology. Original air-polishing systems are highly abrasive to root cementum and dentin and cannot be used safely in the subgingival area (risk of inducing hard and soft tissue lesions and emphysema). New low abrasive powders and nozzles were designed in order to allow access to root surfaces and to permit the use of the air-polishing devices safely. Recent clinical studies have shown the short-term clinical efficacy of such devices in residual pockets and their safety when used on root surfaces. The new subgingival air-polishing devices are perceived more acceptable by the patients and are more time efficient than scaling and root planning during maintenance. Long-term studies are still lacking to prove their clinical and microbiological efficacy.

Subgingival plaque removal using a new air-polishing device.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety, patient acceptance, and short-term microbiologic effect of a new air-polishing device in subjects in maintenance care with residual pockets > or =5 mm. METHODS: This was an examiner-masked, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial. A new disposable nozzle, allowing the subgingival application of amino acid glycine powder at a limited pressure, was compared to scaling and root planing (SRP) in 50 subjects with residual pockets during the maintenance phase. After removing supragingival deposits, the spray was applied for 4 to 5 seconds in all sites > or =5 mm in the test quadrant, whereas SRP was used in the control quadrant. Microbiologic samples were taken from one treated test and one control site 2 days before and 7 days after treatment. Total bacterial counts and the counts of six periodontal pathogens were determined by real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: No adverse event was noted in any subject for the test or control treatment. Using a visual analog scale, the patients perceived the test treatment to be significantly less painful/uncomfortable than the hand instrumentation (P <0.001). Significantly less time was used by the operator for the test procedure (P <0.001). The reduction in bleeding on probing was significant for the treated sites in the test and control quadrants (P = 0.019 and P <0.001, respectively), but traditional SRP reduced the bleeding tendency significantly more than air polishing (P = 0.045). The differences in the total bacterial load and the counts of six periodontal pathogens between the test and control sites did not reach statistical significance. The longitudinal reduction was significant in control sites for total bacteria load (P <0.001), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P = 0.01), Treponema denticola (P <0.001), and Tannerella forsythia (previously T. forsythensis) (P <0.001). CONCLUSION: Subgingival air polishing with a new device was safe (no adverse events were noted), perceived to be more acceptable by the patients, and was more time-efficient than SRP; however, on a microbiologic level, it was not superior to conventional SRP.