Porras Roberto, Anderson Gissela B, Caffesse Raul, Narendran Sena, Trejo Pedro M
Department of Stomatology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Dental Branch, 77030-3402, USA.
J Periodontol. 2002 Oct;73(10):1118-25. doi: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.10.1118.
Maintenance of implants is imperative, since implants, like teeth, are susceptible to bacterial plaque accumulation and calculus formation, and thus at risk of developing peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.
This study determined the clinical effects of chlorhexidine treatment on peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months as determined by the modified plaque index, the modified sulcus bleeding index, clinical attachment level, and probing depth. Through DNA probes, the effect of chlorhexidine on the microbial flora of mucositic lesions was also evaluated. The population consisted of 16 adult male and female subjects (ages 34 to 76). After the baseline examination, the subjects received a dental prophylaxis and were randomly assigned to the test or control group. Subjects in the test group received antiseptic therapy (Treatment 1), which included mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions supplemented by the local irrigation with chlorhexidine 0.12%, using a plastic syringe, and the topical application of a 0.12% chlorhexidine gel. The subjects in the control group received only mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions (Treatment 2).
Both modalities of treatment were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis and probing depths, and improving attachment levels. The trends suggested that mechanical cleansing alone may be sufficient to treat and reduce peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months after treatment. The addition of chlorhexidine to mechanical debridement did not enhance the results as compared to mechanical debridement alone.
Mechanical debridement as well as mechanical debridement supplemented with chlorhexidine can be beneficial to patients with peri-implant mucositis. Both treatments resulted in a reduction of plaque, inflammation, and probing depth, as well as a gain in clinical attachment level, and are effective in suppressing or eradicating the pathogenic bacteria often associated with peri-implant inflammation.
种植体的维护至关重要，因为种植体与牙齿一样，容易积聚细菌菌斑和形成牙结石，因此有发生种植体周围黏膜炎或种植体周围炎的风险。
本研究通过改良菌斑指数、改良龈沟出血指数、临床附着水平和探诊深度，确定了洗必泰治疗在1个月和3个月时对种植体周围黏膜炎的临床效果。还通过DNA探针评估了洗必泰对黏膜炎病变微生物菌群的影响。研究对象包括16名成年男性和女性（年龄34至76岁）。在基线检查后，受试者接受了牙齿预防治疗，并被随机分配到试验组或对照组。试验组的受试者接受抗菌治疗（治疗1），包括机械清洁和口腔卫生指导，并辅以用塑料注射器局部冲洗0.12%的洗必泰，以及局部应用0.12%的洗必泰凝胶。对照组的受试者仅接受机械清洁和口腔卫生指导（治疗2）。
两种治疗方式均能有效减轻种植体周围黏膜炎和探诊深度，并改善附着水平。趋势表明，仅机械清洁可能足以在治疗后1个月和3个月治疗和减轻种植体周围黏膜炎。与单独的机械清创相比，在机械清创中添加洗必泰并没有增强效果。
机械清创以及辅以洗必泰的机械清创对种植体周围黏膜炎患者可能有益。两种治疗均导致菌斑、炎症和探诊深度减少，以及临床附着水平增加，并且在抑制或根除通常与种植体周围炎症相关的病原菌方面有效。
