RESUMEN
AIM: To study the clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients (113 implants) with peri-implantitis were randomized into three groups (A, amoxicillin and metronidazole; B, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole; or C, placebo). Treatment included resective surgery and implant surface decontamination with adjunctive antibiotics or placebo. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Secondary outcomes were treatment success (defined as PPD ≤ 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP] ≤ 1site, absence of suppuration on probing [SOP] and absence of progressive bone loss of >0.5 mm), changes in BOP/SOP, mucosal recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), bacterial levels and adverse events. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 12 months. The impact of potential prognostic indicators on treatment success was evaluated using multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (104 implants) completed the study. All groups showed clinical and radiological improvements over time. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups for MBL stability (A = 97%, B = 89%, C = 76%), treatment success (A = 68%, B = 66%, C = 28%) and bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia, favouring antibiotics compared to placebo. Multiple regression identified antibiotic use as potential prognostic indicator for treatment success. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most reported adverse events in the antibiotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive systemic antibiotics resulted in additional improvements in MBL stability. However, the potential clinical benefits of antibiotics need to be carefully balanced against the risk of adverse events and possible antibiotic resistance.
Asunto(s)
Amoxicilina , Antibacterianos , Metronidazol , Periimplantitis , Humanos , Periimplantitis/tratamiento farmacológico , Periimplantitis/microbiología , Periimplantitis/cirugía , Femenino , Masculino , Metronidazol/uso terapéutico , Metronidazol/administración & dosificación , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Persona de Mediana Edad , Amoxicilina/uso terapéutico , Amoxicilina/administración & dosificación , Resultado del Tratamiento , Anciano , Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar/cirugía , Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar/tratamiento farmacológico , Bolsa Periodontal/cirugía , Bolsa Periodontal/tratamiento farmacológico , Bolsa Periodontal/microbiología , Placebos , Estudios de Seguimiento , Pérdida de la Inserción Periodontal/cirugía , Pérdida de la Inserción Periodontal/tratamiento farmacológico , Recesión Gingival/cirugía , Recesión Gingival/tratamiento farmacológico , Adulto , Método Doble Ciego , Carga Bacteriana/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the clinical treatment effects of a glycine powder air-polishing or ultrasonic device on peri-implant mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (probing depth ≥4 mm (0.2N) and bleeding on probing (BOP) (primary outcome)) were randomly assigned to treatment with either glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) or ultrasonic (US) debridement. Treatment was performed at baseline and at 3 and 6 months. Professional supra gingival cleaning was performed at 9 and 12 months. Oral hygiene instructions were reinforced at each visit. RESULTS: At 12 months there was a statistically significant reduction in mean plaque score, bleeding on probing and number of periodontal pockets ≥4 mm within the treatment groups compared to baseline. The percentages of diseased sites were significantly reduced for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a glycine powder air-polishing or an ultrasonic device is effective in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis.