Mechanical non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: a double‐blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results

Renvert, Stefan; Samuelsson, Emelie; Lindahl, Christel; Persson, G. Rutger

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01421.x

Cited by 175 publications

(222 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

196

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are consistent with other studies. 34 The previous microbiological and clinical studies, demonstrated that mechanical debridement alone was not efficient for decontamination of implant surfaces and did not give rise to improvement of the clinical situation. 35 It is very difficult to eliminate bacteria from implant surfaces using mechanical methods alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunctive to Mechanical Debridement in the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Karimi¹,

Hasani²,

Khosroshahian

2016

J Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The purpose of the present study was to assess the clinical effects of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) after closed surface scaling in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Methods: Ten patients with a total of 15 pairs of dental implants, showing clinical and radiographic signs of peri-implant diseases, were included in this study. In each patient, one implant randomly served as control implant and the other served as test implant. The control implants were treated with closed surface scaling only and the test implants received additionally PDT, using light with a wavelength of 630 nm and intensity of 2000 mw/cm 2 for 120 seconds after application of photosensitizer in peri-implant sulcus. Clinical parameters were evaluated before and 1.5 and 3 months after treatment. Results: Statistical analysis showed significant differences in probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and gingival index (GI) at each time point between the two groups. There were no statistically significant changes with respect to any of the parameters in the control group. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 100% of test implants. At 1.5 and 3 months, there were significant differences in the mean probing depth and CAL gain measurements at implants in the test group. Conclusion: The present study revealed that adjunctive use of PDT following closed surface scaling could lead to clinical improvement of peri-implant diseases. Further studies are necessary to confirm our results. Keywords: clinical trial; dental implant; mechanical debridement; peri-implantitis; photodynamic therapy Please cite this article as follows: Karimi MR, Hasani A, Khosroshahian S. Efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy as an adjunctive to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunctive to Mechanical Debridement in the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Karimi¹,

Hasani²,

Khosroshahian

2016

J Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Once a biofilm has become established on an implant surface, conventional methods of debridement are not effective for its removal [8]. An implant surface which is positioned below the position of the oral soft tissues cannot be reached with the bristles of a conventional toothbrush, as these only penetrate 0.5 mm into crevices around teeth and dental implants.…”

Section: Biofilm Development On Implant Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditional dental treatment modalities, such as the removal of biofilms using scaling instruments originally designed for debriding the roots of teeth to remove such deposits, cannot be applied in exactly the same way to threaded implant surfaces [8]. The implant surface structure has far more areas which are protected, and much of the surface is inaccessible to conventional professional instruments.…”

Section: The Complexities Of Biofilm Removal and Implant Debridementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Models to Manage Biofilms on Microtextured Dental Implant Surfaces

Tran¹,

Walsh²

2016

Microbial Biofilms - Importance and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants are used extensively to replace missing teeth. To enhance their integration with the bones of the jaws, the surfaces of titanium dental implants are modified to make them hydrophilic, high energy, and microtextured. These same features make biofilm development occur readily upon exposure to the saliva. The presence of mature biofilms on dental implant surfaces drives local inflammatory responses in the adjacent soft and hard tissues (peri-implantitis), which leads to pathological loss of bone and the formation of a saucer shaped bone defects. This chapter examines the unique challenges posed by biofilms formed on highly complex dental implant surfaces, which are difficult to access for cleaning, and easily damaged by conventional cleaning approaches. We explore how biofilms can be removed from implant surfaces using a variety of novel methods, without causing surface damage or other undesirable modifications, and show how different laboratory and clinical models can be used to assess the performance of both conventional and novel methods of biofilm removal.

show abstract

“…Biofilms comprise of a grid of exopolysaccharides, proteins, and nucleic acids [9,14]. A considerable measure of infections in the oral hole, for example, caries, stomatitis, periodontal, and peri-embed maladies, are connected with biofilms [17]. Test and clinical reviews exhibited that peri-embed and periodontal tissues respond also to oral biofilms [2,6,12,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behaviour of Streptococcus Mutans on Enamel Surface Coated with Initial Biofilm, In Vivo

Erol¹

2017

IJDOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mechanical non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: a double‐blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results

Abstract: No group differences were found in the treatment outcomes. While plaque and bleeding scores improved, no effects on PPD were identified.

Cited by 175 publications

References 11 publications

Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunctive to Mechanical Debridement in the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunctive to Mechanical Debridement in the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Novel Models to Manage Biofilms on Microtextured Dental Implant Surfaces

Behaviour of Streptococcus Mutans on Enamel Surface Coated with Initial Biofilm, In Vivo

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About