Valderrama Pilar, Blansett Jonathan A, Gonzalez Mayra G, Cantu Myrna G, Wilson Thomas G
Department of Periodontics, Texas A & M University, Baylor College of Dentistry, Dallas, Texas 3302 Gaston Avenue, Dallas Texas 75246.
Universidad de Panama, Facultad De, Odontologia Estafeta Universitaria Apartado 3366, Panama City, Panama, 3366.
Open Dent J. 2014 May 16;8:77-84. doi: 10.2174/1874210601408010077. eCollection 2014.
The aim of this review is to summarize the findings of studies that have evaluated non-surgical approaches for detoxification of implant body surfaces in vitro and in vivo, and to evaluate clinical trials on the use of these methodologies for treating peri-implant disease.
A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (Pubmed) from 1966 to 2013. In vitro and in vivo studies as well as clinical trials on non-surgical therapy were evaluated. The outcome variables were the ability of the therapeutic method to eliminate the biofilm and endotoxins from the implant surface, the changes in clinical parameters including probing depth, clinical attachment levels, bleeding on probing; radiographic bone fill and histological re-osseointegration.
From 134 articles found 35 were analyzed. The findings, advantages and disadvantages of using lasers as well as mechanical and chemical methods are discussed. Most of the in vivo and human studies used combination therapies which makes determining the efficacy of one specific method difficult. Most human studies are case series with short term longitudinal analysis without survival or failure reports.
Complete elimination of the biofilms is difficult to achieve using these approaches. All therapies induce changes of the chemical and physical properties of the implant surface. Re-osseointegration may be difficult to achieve if not impossible without surgical access to ensure thorough debridement of the defect and detoxification of the implant surface. Combination protocols for non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in humans have shown some positive clinical results but long-term evaluation to evaluate the validity and reliability of the techniques is needed.
本综述的目的是总结评估种植体表面非手术体外和体内解毒方法的研究结果,并评估使用这些方法治疗种植体周围疾病的临床试验。
使用MEDLINE(PubMed)对1966年至2013年的文献进行检索。评估了体外和体内研究以及非手术治疗的临床试验。结果变量包括治疗方法从种植体表面清除生物膜和内毒素的能力、临床参数的变化,包括探诊深度、临床附着水平、探诊出血;影像学骨填充和组织学再骨结合。
从找到的134篇文章中分析了35篇。讨论了使用激光以及机械和化学方法的研究结果、优点和缺点。大多数体内和人体研究使用联合治疗,这使得确定一种特定方法的疗效变得困难。大多数人体研究是病例系列,采用短期纵向分析,没有生存或失败报告。
使用这些方法难以完全清除生物膜。所有治疗都会引起种植体表面化学和物理性质的变化。如果不通过手术确保对缺损进行彻底清创和种植体表面解毒,可能很难实现再骨结合。人类种植体周围炎非手术治疗的联合方案已显示出一些积极的临床结果,但需要进行长期评估以评估这些技术的有效性和可靠性。