Therapy of peri‐implantitis with resective surgery

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the clinical outcome of two different surgical approaches for the treatment of peri-implantitis. Seventeen patients with ITI(R) implants were included consecutively over a period of 5 years. The patients were randomized with a lottery assignment. Ten patients were treated with resective surgery and modification of surface topography (test group). The remaining seven patients were treated with resective surgery only (control group). Clinical parameters (suppuration, modified plaque index - mPI, modified bleeding index - mBI, probing pocket depth - PPD, pseudopocket - DIM, mucosal recession - REC, probing attachment level - PAL) were recorded at baseline, as well as 6, 12, 24 and 36 months after treatment. The cumulative survival rate for the implants of the test group was 100% after 3 years. After 24 months, two hollow-screw implants of control group were removed because of mobility. Consequently, the cumulative survival rate was 87.5%. The recession index in the control group was significantly lower than in the test group at 24 months (Student's t-value of -2.14). On the contrary, control group showed higher PPD, PAL and mBI indexes than test group (Student's t-values of +5.5, +2.4 and +9.61, respectively). The PPD and mBI indexes for the implants of the control group were significantly higher at baseline than 24 months later (Student's t-values of +3.18 and +3.33, respectively). Recession and PAL indexes resulted in values significantly lower than baseline (Student's t-values of -4.62 and -2.77, respectively). For the implants of the test group PPD and mBI indexes were significantly higher at baseline than 36 months after (Student's t-values of +11.63 and +16.02, respectively). Recession index resulted in values significantly lower at baseline (Student's t-value of -5.05). No statistically significant differences were found between PAL index measurement at baseline and 36 months later (Student's t-value of +0.89). In conclusion, resective therapy associated with implantoplasty seems to influence positively the survival of oral implants affected by inflammatory processes.

Comparison of Long-term Survival of Implants and Endodontically Treated Teeth

“…[survival]/75.6% [success] were found for implants supporting single-tooth prostheses, of 94.4%/76.3% for cantilever fixedpartial prostheses, of 96.1%/73.8% for fixed-partial prostheses, of 100%/63.8% for fixed complete prostheses, of 90.6%/70.6% for implant-/tooth-supported prostheses, and of 95.7%/78.6% for overdentures (Romeo et al, 2004).…”

High Bone-Implant Contact Achieved by Photofunctionalization to Reduce Periimplant Stress

“…Clinically, lower success or survival rates have been demonstrated for the use of implants of 10-mm length or shorter, [36][37][38] which are commonly referred to as short implants. FEAs in the literature have repeatedly shown that the longer the implant the less strain force is generated around the crest of the alveolar bone.…”

Hybrid Prosthetic Treatment of the Edentulous Mandible with Two or Four Implants - A Literature Review

“…There was a survival rate of 95.7% after an observation period of seven years. There was not further subdivision of the group into two versus four implants [43].…”