Non-surgical Treatment Of Peri-implantitis Research Articles

Antibiotics in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

Four electronic databases (MEDLINE via Pubmed; EMBASE via Ovid; EBSCO Dentistry and Oral Science Source), in addition to six related journals (Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research; Clinical Oral Implants Research; International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants; International Journal of Oral Implantology; Journal of Clinical Periodontology; Journal of Periodontology), were searched for publications until 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), evaluating the effectiveness of local or systemic antibiotics as an adjunct in the non-surgical treatment (NST) for peri-implantitis (PI), were assessed. The eligibility criteria included RCTs with a parallel group, split-mouth design and appropriate NST interventions over a three to twelve month period. Data were extracted from RCTs to capture a multitude of primary outcomes, including: implant success rate, radiographic marginal bone loss rate, periodontal health changes and PI resolution. Risk of bias assessments were made using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, by two authors independently and in duplicate. RCTs with similar observation periods and interventions were included in the meta-analyses. Random-effects meta-analyses of mean differences or relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were calculated, in additional to data heterogeneity calibration through I2 statistics. Following the screening of 270 papers, six RCTs were included, which resulted in the evaluation of 391 patients (375 implants). Adjunctive local antibiotic therapy at disease sites showed statistically significant periodontal outcomes; improvements in success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84), probing pocket depth (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78) and bleeding on probing (MD = 0.15%; 95% CI 0.10-0.19). Conversely, adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved probing pocket depths (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and probing attachment levels only (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Across the six included RCTs, the bone loss rate and PI resolution rate determined no significant differences between the groups; mirrored in the single studies and in the meta-analysis. Disease resolution ranged from 2 to 65%. Two of the studies were found to be at low risk of bias and four presented with some concerns. Adjunctive antibiotics aid NST. However, the heterogeneity of study methods and low quality of current RCTs evidenced, deem their role in NSTs of PI as inconclusive.

Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without erythritol air-polishing a 12-month randomized controlled trial

BackgroundA variety of interventions have been explored in the non-surgical management of peri-implantitis. In spite of extensive testing of various study protocols, effective treatments largely remain unavailable. The objective of the present 12-month single-centre, examiner-masked, randomized controlled clinical trial was to explore whether a low-abrasive erythritol air-polishing system produces added clinical benefit when used adjunctive to conventional non-surgical management of peri-implantitis and to record any associated patient-centered outcomes.MethodsForty-three patients with mild to severe peri-implantitis including at least one implant either received ultrasonic/curette subgingival instrumentation and erythritol air-polishing (test) or ultrasonic/curette instrumentation only (control) at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), dental plaque, suppuration (SUP), crestal bone level (CBL), and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PCF) were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were collected immediately following subgingival interventions at all time-points.ResultsA reduction in PD was observed from baseline to 6 months for the test (p = 0.006) and control (p < 0.001) and from baseline to 12 months for the control (p < 0.001). No intergroup differences were observed for primary outcome variables PD or CBL over time (p > 0.05). At 6 months, a intergroup difference in PCF was observed in favor of the test (p = 0.042). Moreover, a reduction in SUP from baseline to 6 and 12 months was observed in the test (p = 0.019). Overall, patients in the control group experienced less pain/discomfort compared with the test (p < 0.05), females reporting more pain/discomfort than males (p = 0.005).ConclusionsThis study confirms that conventional non-surgical management of peri-implantitis produces limited clinical improvement. It is shown that an erythritol air-polishing system may not produce added clinical benefits when used adjunctive to conventional non-surgical management. In other words, neither approach effectively resolved peri-implantitis. Moreover, the erythritol air-polishing system produced added pain/discomfort particularly in female patients.Trial registrationThe clinical trial was prospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with registration NCT04152668 (05/11/2019).

Outcome indicators of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a prospective case series analysis.

This study aims to identify patient and implant indicators influencing the non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis at 6months of follow-up. This case series involved patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis according to the 2017 World Workshop criteria. Non-surgical therapy consisted of mechanical debridement of the peri-implant pockets combined with metronidazole 500mg 3 times a day for 7days. At baseline and at 6months, clinical and radiographic variables were collected to calculate treatment success (probing pocket depth reduction to 5mm without bleeding on probing or < 5mm irrespective of bleeding on probing at all implant sites, and lack of bone loss progression). The primary outcome was treatment success (%) at 6months. The influence of the patient and implant/prosthetic variables upon disease resolution was assessed through simple and multiple logistic regression analyses at patient and implant level, using generalized estimation equations models. A total of 74 patients and 107 implants were analyzed at 6months. Disease resolution was established in 25.7% of the patients and 24.1% of the implants. Patients with stage IV and grade C periodontitis, inadequate oral hygiene at baseline, and wide diameter (≥ 4.5mm) presented significantly greater treatment failure, whereas smokers and former smokers demonstrated a tendency toward failure. At 6months, there was a significant decrease in probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing of 1.08 ± 1.06mm and 14%, respectively. Radiographically, a significant gain in marginal bone level of 0.43 ± 0.56mm was observed. Disease resolution after non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is negatively influenced by the loss of support of the adjacent periodontium, poor baseline oral hygiene, and wide diameter implants (≥ 4.5mm). This study helps to discriminate the clinical situations in which non-surgical treatment is less likely to achieve treatment success at short term.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of diode laser therapy in conjunction with nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

Peri-implantitis (PI) is an inflammatory condition associated with the destruction of bone tissue around a dental implant, and diode lasers can be used to treat this disease. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 940-nm diode laser for the nonsurgical treatment of PI. Twenty patients (8 women and 12 men) were enrolled in a split-mouth randomized controlled study. In the control group (CG), mechanical debridement with titanium curettes accompanied by airflow was performed around the implants. The test group (TG) was treated similarly, but with the use of a diode laser. Clinical measurements (plaque index, gingival index [GI], probing pocket depth [PPD], bleeding on probing [BOP], clinical attachment level, and interleukin-1β [IL-1β] in the peri-implant crevicular fluid) were evaluated and recorded at baseline and 3 months. IL-1β levels were determined using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. The symptoms were alleviated in both groups at 3 months as assessed through clinical measurements. GI, BOP, and PPD were significantly lower in the TG than in the CG (P<0.05). The IL-1β level increased post-treatment in both groups, but this increase was only statistically significant (P<0.05) in the CG. The diode laser enabled improvements in clinical parameters in the peri-implant tissue. However, it did not reduce IL-1β levels after treatment. Further studies about the use of diode lasers in the treatment of PI will be necessary to evaluate the effects of diode lasers in PI treatment.

Clinical Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivate Used in Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

Background and objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched until August 2022 to identify relevant articles. The inclusion criteria consisted in human clinical studies that reported the use of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) in surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and for non-RCTs ROBINS-I tool. Results: Clinical studies included were published between 2012 and 2022 and consisted of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for non-surgical therapy and two RCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective case series in surgical therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patients' characteristics and assessment of peri-implant therapy, statistical analysis could not be achieved. Conclusions: The use of EMD indicated a positive effect on both surgical and non-surgical therapy. However, the available literature is scarce, with low evidence in non-surgical approach and modest evidence in surgical approach using EMD. More RCTs with standardize protocols are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of using EMD in both therapies.

Antibiotics as Adjunctive Therapy in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The role of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic therapy, local or systemic, as an adjunctive to the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Primary outcomes were: implant success rate and complications, changes in radiographic bone level, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and peri-implantitis resolution. Six studies were included: two using topical and four systemic antibiotics. Adjunctive local antibiotics improved PPD (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78), BOP (MD = 0.15% (95% CI 0.10, 0.19)) and the success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84). No significant difference in bone level and success rate were found with the use of systemic antibiotics, although they appeared to improve PPD (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and PAL (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive local antibiotics showed improved outcomes in terms of success rate, PPD and BOP, while adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved PPD and PAL only. Peri-implantitis resolution was about 20-30% using adjunctive local antibiotics, whilst it ranged from 2% to 65% with adjunctive systemic antibiotics. Findings are still controversial, since they are based on few studies with high heterogeneity, at the uncertain or high risk of bias and involve few patients. Non-surgical debridement and maintenance periodontal support therapy remain pivotal and the adjunctive use of antibiotics for peri-implantitis cannot be routinely recommended, even considering the increasing concern on antibiotic resistance.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis Using a Chitosan Brush with Adjunctive Chemical Decontaminants- A Retrospective Case Series.

To evaluate the effect of a simple nonsurgical procedure for the treatment of peri-implantitis. A total of 30 implants across 24 patients diagnosed with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis were treated using a chitosan brush with adjunctive chemicals, ie, 3% hydrogen peroxide and a tetracycline slurry. The treatment was performed a total of three times, with intervals of approximately 3 weeks. Results showed improvement in both the clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing score between the baseline and the re-examinations between 9 months and up to 43 months (mean 26.8 months) after treatment. The mean CAL at baseline was 3.4 mm (range: 1 to 8 mm), while the mean CAL during the final examination was 1.4 mm (range: 0 to 5 mm), demonstrating a mean reduction of CAL of 2 mm (range: 1 to 7 mm; P < .001). Of the analyzed implant sites, 72% demonstrated radiographic signs of osseous defect fill varying between 0.1 and 2.2 mm (mean: 1.0 mm). The results show that this novel treatment strategy may serve as a nonsurgical alternative to reduce parameters of inflammation around implants with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis.

The Application of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT) in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

Background This literature review evaluates the mechanisms and efficacy of different types of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for treating peri-implantitis by reviewing existing experimental studies to provide guidance for the clinical application of antibacterial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in oral implants. Materials and Methods From February 2001 to February 2021, we have collected 152 randomized controlled trials of aPDT for peri-implantitis by searching the experimental studies and clinical trials published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases via online search. After screening the retrieved literature, we finally selected 10 statistically significant literature for evaluation and review. Results Compared with the traditional nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis, the aPDT was superior to the traditional mechanical irrigation treatment group in terms of periodontal indexes PD, BOP, PLI, and postoperative effect, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the combination of the aPDT and other treatments shows the synergistic antibacterial effect, signifying better clinical effect in many aspects (P < 0.05). In these 10 papers, by comparing the probe depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), synosteosis, and periodontal pathogenic bacteria detection, etc., obtained after treating peri-implantitis by application of the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, and using the SPSS data analysis software for statistical data processing, we found that the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy combined with other periodontal treatments has a more prominent postoperative effect. Meanwhile, the antibacterial photodynamic therapy with targeted action of photosensitizer has strong specificity to some bacteria, while the synthetic photosensitize for antibacterial photodynamic therapy can show good inactivation effect on broad-spectrum periodontal anaerobes without side effect. Conclusion The experimental studies and clinical data of antibacterial photodynamic therapy for treating peri-implantitis show a good postoperative treatment effect. In addition, it did not develop resistance due to the use of antibiotic drugs. Owing to multiple advantages from combining antibacterial photodynamic therapy and other treatments, it is applicable for clinical treatment.

Airflow for initial nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis may help in reducing microbial load and inflammatory parameters. The potential clinical benefits of using different treatment approaches, in the initial nonsurgical treatment phase, particularly the airflow, are still not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow method in terms of changes in periodontal parameters, peri-implant marginal bone level, postoperative pain/discomfort, and patient satisfaction. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared airflow with mechanical debridement using ultrasonic/curettes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program. A total of 316 studies were identified, of which, five RCTs with 288 dental implants in 174 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed more reduction in probing pocket depths at 1-3 months (mean difference [MD] -0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50-0.05; p=0.10) and 6 months (MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; p=0.80) in favor of airflow, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of airflow was associated with significant reduction in bleeding on probing and increase in peri-implant mucosal recession. The differences in plaque score, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient reported outcomes between airflow and mechanical debridement were not statistically significant. The short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow or mechanical debridement were comparable. The airflow has short-term positive effects on reducing bleeding on probing. Further evidence from RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.

Effectiveness of Tetracycline Drugs in the Non Surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction: Peri-implantitis is a significant factor affecting the success rate of oral reconstruction. Hence, it is vital to prevent it. To control peri-implant disease, non surgical treatment is the first line of defense. While peri-implant mucositis can be entirely treated, there are unforeseen repercussions for the treatment of peri-implantitis, according to many studies using non invasive approaches. Aim: To investigate the clinical effects of the tetracycline group of medications in the treatment of non surgical peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: Electronic bibliographic databases PubMed (MEDLINE), EBSCO, Cochrane database, Clinical trial registry, DOAJ, Google Scholar, and Manual reference searches were performed for articles published January 2010 to August 2021. Total five Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) were selected. Three reviewers independently performed the data extraction using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROB-2 tool and the quality of evidence was determined with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the reduction in Bleeding On Probing (BOP), Probing Pocket Depth (PPD) and Clinical Attachment Level (CAL). Results: In the overall analysis, BOP and PPD, was statistically reduced in the tetracycline drugs compared to the tetracycline groups. When comparing experimental and control groups, the mean reduction in BOP was -9.71 mm, (95% CI: -11.74 to -7.68), The random-effects model showed a statistically significant difference Z=9.40 (p-value&lt;0.00001). The mean PPD was reduced by -1.18 mm in the experimental groups compared to the control groups (95 % CI: -2.35 to -0.02). The CAL gain was -0.98 mm from 3.23 to 1.28 mm in the experimental group which was statistically non significant. The minocycline revealed statistically significant mean difference in BOP (mean difference was -0.72 (95 % CI: -6.84, -3.24 mm but non significant difference reduction in PPD (p-value &gt;0.05). High heterogenicity was reported in all analyses. Conclusion: The non surgical treatment with the tetracycline medication group resulted in a significant clinical reduction in BOP and PPD without a significant change in CAL when compared to other non surgical therapies. The minocycline has resulted in clinical decreases in BOP except PPD. Longterm randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of treatments that do not prevent further bone loss, implant survival rates, and oral health-related quality of life standards.

Erbium, chromium-doped: yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet and diode lasers in the treatment of peri-implantitis: clinical and biochemical outcomes in a randomized-controlled clinical trial.

This study aims to evaluate the effects of 940nm diode laser and 2780nm erbium, chromium-doped: yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser used in addition to mechanical therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis on clinical parameters and matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) levels in the peri-implant crevicular fluid. A total of 50 patients with peri-implantitis were randomized into three groups to receive peri-implant treatment. The control group (n = 17) only received conventional non-surgical mechanical therapy. The trial groups [(diode group (n = 16) and Er,Cr:YSGG group (n = 17)] received dental laser in addition to mechanical therapy. Gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing, probing depth (PD), MMP-9, and TIMP-1 levels were assessed at baseline (T0) and at 6months after treatment (T1). The GI, PI, and PD significantly decreased in all groups at T1, compared to T0 (p < 0.05). The decrease in the PD was similar between the control and diode groups with Er,Cr:YSGG providing more reduction (1.16 ± 0.64mm) than either method (p = 0.032). A significant intra-group decrease in MMP-9 level was only observed in the Er,Cr:YSGG group (p = 0.009). The decrease in TIMP-1 level from T0 to T1 was similar between the control and the diode groups (p > 0.05) and it was significantly lower than the decrease in the Er,Cr:YSGG group (p < 0.05). Addition of diode laser to non-surgical mechanical therapy does not provide any additional benefit for treatment outcomes. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser seems to be more efficient both at clinical and molecular levels. ClinicalTrials, ID: NCT04730687. Registered 13 April 2021. Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04730687.

Erythritol airpolishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

ObjectivesTo compare erythritol air polishing with piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis.Material and methodsEighty patients (n = 139 implants) with peri‐implantitis (probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm, marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥2 mm as compared to bone level at implant placement, bleeding, and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP)) were randomly allocated to air polishing or ultrasonic treatment. The primary outcome was mean BoP (%) at 3 months after therapy (T3). Secondary outcomes were mean SoP (%), plaque score (Plq) (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), full mouth periodontal scores (FMPS) (%), levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens, and treatment pain/discomfort (Visual Analog Scale, VAS). Patients who were considered successful at T3 were additionally assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months. Differences between both groups were analyzed using multilevel statistics.ResultsThree months after therapy, no significant difference in mean BoP (%) between the air polishing and ultrasonic therapy was found (crude analysis β (95% CI) −0.037 (−0.147; 0.073), p = .380). Neither secondary outcomes SoP (%), Plq (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), FMPS (%), and periodontal pathogens showed significant differences. Treatment pain/discomfort was low in both groups (VAS score airpolishing group 2.1 (±1.9), ultrasonic 2.6 (±1.9); p = .222). All successfully treated patients at T3 (18.4%) were still considered successful at 12‐month follow‐up.ConclusionsErythritol air polishing seems as effective as piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis, in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. However, neither of the proposed therapies effectively resolved peri‐implantitis. Hence, the majority of patients required further surgical treatment.

Short-term comparison of two non-surgical treatment modalities of peri-implantitis: Clinical and microbiological outcomes in a two-factorial randomized controlled trial.

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. This was an examiner-blind randomized clinical trial, with 2-factorial design with a follow-up of 6months. 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). 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: 0.5mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9mm, p=.0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1mm; 95% CI from -0.3 to 0.5mm, 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. 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.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Case Series

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).

Non-surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis With and Without Erythritol Air-polishing

Non-surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis With and Without Erythritol Air-polishing

Adjunctive Systemic Metronidazole to Nonsurgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis with Intrabony Defects: A Retrospective Case Series Study.

To show the clinical and radiographic results of intrabony peri-implantitis lesions treated nonsurgically with adjunctive systemic metronidazole with a mean follow-up of 50 months. Subjects diagnosed with peri-implantitis (probing depth ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding on probing and/or suppuration) with radiographic evidence of intrabony defects > 2 mm were included in this study. Implants affected received one session of nonsurgical mechanical debridement with ultrasonic and steel curettes. Systemic metronidazole was immediately prescribed for 7 days. Clinical and radiographic variables were registered at baseline and at the end of follow-up. Eighteen patients and 25 implants were included in this investigation. At baseline, the mean radiographic bone level and intrabony component were 4.52 ± 2.14 mm and 3.93 ± 1.51 mm, respectively. After a mean follow-up of 54 (range: 12 to 108) months, the mean radiographic bone level reduction was 2.6 ± 0.21 mm, and the intrabony component reduction was 2.85 ± 0.37 mm (P < .05). A mean probing depth reduction of 4.66 ± 1.33 mm was observed (P < .05). Within the limits of this study, nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis with the adjunctive administration of systemic metronidazole has shown potential effectiveness in terms of probing depth and radiographic defect reduction after a mean follow-up of 54 months.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis Without Eliminating Granulation Tissue: A 3-Year Study.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate a nonsurgical approach toward peri-implantitis by means of mechanical debridement and local detoxification leaving granulation tissue into the peri-implant pockets. An analysis was performed on the outcomes of 2 nonsurgical protocols: mechanical debridement plus chemical detoxification with 0.2% chlorhexidine and chlortetracycline hydrochloride (test), and mechanical debridement alone (control). Measures were collected at baseline, 3, 24, and 36 months after treatment. Seventy-five implants with peri-implantitis were included. At a 36-month evaluation, mean pocket probing depth was 3.15 ± 0.32 mm for the test group and 5.97 ± 0.90 mm for the control group, the difference being significant. An improvement of marginal bone level was recorded for the test group, whether the control group showed a further marginal bone loss. Treatment success was 100% in the test group and 31.4% in the control group. Nonsurgical implant debridement alone seemed not efficient in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Further longitudinal studies are required to evaluate the efficacy of mechanical debridement with chemical detoxification and removal of granulation tissues against mechanical debridement with chemical detoxification alone.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Periimplantitis.

Periimplantitis has become an emerging challenge faced by practicing dentists worldwide. When treating periimplantitis, we should attempt to manage this problem via nonsurgical therapies that include addressing all modifiable systemic risk factors and local contributing factors. Hence, the aim of this narrative review was to examine published studies on nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis and evaluate their effectiveness and limitations. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed database up to December 31, 2017. Current published clinical approaches focused on mechanical debridement, adjunctive antiseptic therapy, adjunctive antibiotic therapy, laser-assisted therapy, and combination approaches were included in this analysis. Nonsurgical therapy of periimplantitis may result in complete healing of the disease and the patient is then placed on a supportive maintenance program. If the disease is not resolved and surgical intervention is not an option, active nonsurgical retreatment may be considered. In many cases where disease is not resolved, surgical therapy or implant removal could be considered. Nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis usually provides clinical improvements in reducing bleeding tendency and in some cases pocket reduction. Early diagnosis, detection, and intervention remain the key for managing periimplantitis.

Microbiological and clinical effects of adjunctive systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: 1 year follow-up.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of adjunct systemic antibiotic treatment with metronidazole (MTZ) and amoxicillin (AMX) in patients receiving non-surgical subgingival debridement (NSD) for peri-implantitis. Forty subjects presenting with at least one implant with severe peri-implantitis were randomized into an experimental group [treated with NSD plus MTZ (400 mg) and AMX (500 mg) three times a day for 14 days] and a control group treated with NSD plus placebo. Clinical parameters and submucosal biofilm profiles were evaluated up to 1 year post-treatment. Overall, both treatments improved clinical parameters over time. At 1 year, mean probing depth (PD), mean clinical attachment (CA) level and proportions of red complex pathogens did not differ significantly between the two groups. In addition, mean PD and CA changes to 1-year posttreatment did not differ significantly between the two groups between baseline and 1-year post-treatment. These results suggest that the addition of MTZ and AMX to the treatment protocol of patients undergoing NSD for with severe peri-implantitis does not improve the clinical and microbiological outcomes of NSD. The fact that half of the implants in both groups did not achieve clinical success (PD < 5 mm, no BoP, no bone loss) suggest that neither of the tested protocols were effective for treating severe peri-implantitis.

Non-surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Non-surgical Treatment of Peri-implantitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature