Department of Oral Surgery, Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany.
J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Sep;38(9):872-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01762.x. Epub 2011 Jul 19.
The aim of this prospective, parallel group designed, randomized controlled clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an air-abrasive device (AAD) for non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
Thirty patients, each of whom displayed at least one implant with initial to moderate peri-implantitis, were enrolled in an oral hygiene program (OHI) and randomly instrumented using either (1) AAD (amino acid glycine powder) or (2) mechanical debridement using carbon curets and antiseptic therapy with chlorhexidine digluconate (MDA). Clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after treatment [e.g. bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL)].
At 6 months, AAD group revealed significantly higher (p<0.05; unpaired t-test) changes in mean BOP scores when compared with MDA-treated sites (43.5 ± 27.7%versus 11.0 ± 15.7%). Both groups exhibited comparable PD reductions (AAD: 0.6 ± 0.6 mm versus MDA: 0.5 ± 0.6 mm) and CAL gains (AAD: 0.4 ± 0.7 mm versus MDA: 0.5 ± 0.8 mm) (p>0.05; unpaired t-test, respectively).
Within its limitations, the present study has indicated that (i) both treatment procedures resulted in comparable but limited CAL gains at 6 months, and (ii) OHI+AAD was associated with significantly higher BOP reductions than OHI+MDA.
本前瞻性、平行组设计、随机对照临床研究旨在评估空气喷砂设备(AAD)在非手术治疗种植体周围炎中的有效性。
共纳入 30 名患者,每位患者均有至少一个初始至中度种植体周围炎的种植体,他们接受口腔卫生计划(OHI)并随机采用以下两种方法之一进行器械处理:(1)AAD(氨基酸甘氨酸粉末)或(2)用碳化硅锉机械清创并使用洗必泰葡萄糖酸盐进行抗菌治疗(MDA)。在治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月测量临床参数[例如,探诊出血(BOP)、探诊深度(PD)、临床附着水平(CAL)]。
6 个月时,与 MDA 治疗部位相比,AAD 组的平均 BOP 评分变化明显更高(p<0.05;未配对 t 检验)(43.5±27.7%比 11.0±15.7%)。两组均表现出类似的 PD 减少(AAD:0.6±0.6 mm 比 MDA:0.5±0.6 mm)和 CAL 增加(AAD:0.4±0.7 mm 比 MDA:0.5±0.8 mm)(p>0.05;未配对 t 检验,分别)。
在其局限性内,本研究表明:(i)两种治疗程序在 6 个月时均导致可比但有限的 CAL 增加,(ii)OHI+AAD 与显著更高的 BOP 减少相关,而 OHI+MDA 则不然。