Efficacy of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Non‐Surgical Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis

Menezes, Karyna M.; Fernandes-Costa, Anderson Nicolly; Silva-Neto, Reinaldo Dias; Calderon, Patrícia S.; Gurgel, Bruno César de Vasconcelos

doi:10.1902/jop.2016.160144

Cited by 60 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(62 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These percentages, however, decreased to 9.6% at 6 months in the control group. These results with the conventional treatment to manage PM were markedly inferior to those reported previously in the literature ranging between 38% and 83.3% (Hallstrom, Persson, Lindgren, Olofsson, & Renvert, ; Heitz‐Mayfield et al, ; Menezes, Fernandes‐Costa, Silva‐Neto, Calderon, & Gurgel, ; Pulcini et al, ; Riben‐Grundstrom et al, ). In contrast, in the test group, this percentage increased to 66.6%.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

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

Tapia

Mozas

Vallés

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

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

Tapia

Mozas

Vallés

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When compared with the previous study by Menezes et al, the percentage of reduction of bleeding on probing worsened, while the probing depth remained stable over the long term. The fact that we did not use chlorhexidine in association with peri‐implant support therapy, and used only mechanical therapy and oral hygiene guidance, may be a possible explanation for this outcome, as well as the longer time interval between control visits.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 65%

“…To obtain data, all subjects were submitted to anamnesis and periodontal clinical examination, composed of visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), and full periodontal chart, according to the method applied by Menezes et al All subjects signed an informed consent form and were followed for 54 months. For data analysis, all information was collected and inserted in a database using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A prospective study of the clinical outcomes of peri‐implant tissues in patients treated for peri‐implant mucositis and followed up for 54 months

Fernandes-Costa

Menezes

Borges

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Peri‐implant mucositis is very common and, when left untreated, can progress to the more serious condition of peri‐implantitis. Therefore, early diagnosis, adequate treatment and, in particular, adherence to a peri‐implant supportive therapy are extremely important for the management of peri‐implant mucositis. Purpose Characterize the clinical conditions of peri‐implant tissues in patients diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis after undergoing peri‐implant supportive therapy for 54 months. Materials and Methods Thirty‐eight patients (131 dental implants) who received peri‐implant supportive therapy, associated with oral hygiene instructions, were assessed at baseline and at 54 months for visible plaque and gingival bleeding indexes, probing depth and bleeding on probing. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi‐square test and relative risk assessment using a significance level set at 5%. Results None of the independent variables evaluated (age, gender, smoking, type of prosthesis, time using the prosthesis, keratinized mucosa, phenotype peri‐implant, classification of visible plaque index and classification of gingival bleeding index) presented significant associations with “worsening” or “improvement” of clinical parameters. Conclusion The implementation of peri‐implant support therapy was not sufficient for the resolution of peri‐implant mucositis, although reductions in clinical parameters with respect to baseline were observed and maintained during follow‐up.

show abstract

“…Paolantonio et al reported that the application of a 1% chlorhexidine gel could reduce bacterial counts, without interfering with specific pathogens. These findings imply that the number of bacteria present cannot be used to predict the prognosis of peri‐implantitis …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pyrosequencing of the subgingival microbiome in peri‐implantitis after non‐surgical mechanical debridement therapy

Nie

Zhang

Zheng

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives Peri‐implantitis remains a challenge for dental implant therapy, and the prognosis of non‐surgical therapy for peri‐implantitis is unsatisfactory. In order to reveal the impact of non‐surgical mechanical debridement therapy on microbial communities, we investigated the subgingival microbial communities of healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis, both before and after the therapy. Material and Methods Subgingival plaques were collected from patients with healthy dental implants (HC; n = 10) and from patients with peri‐implantitis (n = 13) before and after non‐surgical mechanical debridement therapy. The treatment was conducted using curettes for submucosal debridement followed by irrigation with 0.2% (w/v) chlorhexidine, with re‐examination 1 month later. 16S rRNA pyrosequencing was used to analyze the subgingival microbiome, and co‐occurrence networks were adopted to explore the interactions between pathogens in the microbial communities. Results A total of 506 955 high‐quality reads were generated, and 2222 operational taxonomic units were finally detected using a 97% similarity cutoff, with a mean of 249 ± 69 per sample. The peri‐implantitis sites harbored similar microbial communities before and after the treatment, as demonstrated by the microbial diversity, relative abundance, and prevalence of bacteria. Most importantly, the microbial community structures were stable before and after non‐surgical therapy based on the microbial diversity and bacterial composition, as well as the interactions between key pathogens, including Enterobacteriaceae, Selenomonas sputigena, Parvimonas, Eubacterium infirmum, Campylobacter gracilis, Tannerella forsythia, and Fusobacterium, which were measured using a co‐occurrence network analysis. Periodontal pathogens were also detected in subgingival plaque after the treatment. Distinct microbial communities were found between the healthy and peri‐implantitis sites. Conclusion Our results demonstrate that non‐surgical mechanical debridement therapy did not significantly affect the subgingival microbial communities in peri‐implantitis, and the stable microbial networks created via interactions among pathogens may be responsible for the poor prognosis of peri‐implantitis treatment.

show abstract

Efficacy of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Non‐Surgical Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis

Abstract: Both isolated mechanical therapy and its association with 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri-implant mucositis. Therefore, 0.12% of chlorhexidine was not more effective than placebo.

Cited by 60 publications

References 37 publications

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

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

A prospective study of the clinical outcomes of peri‐implant tissues in patients treated for peri‐implant mucositis and followed up for 54 months

Pyrosequencing of the subgingival microbiome in peri‐implantitis after non‐surgical mechanical debridement therapy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About