Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Porto Alegre, RS, 90030-035, Brazil.
Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Paulista University, São Paulo, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Oct;25(10):5723-5733. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-03874-z. Epub 2021 Mar 16.
To compare surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis in a two-center randomized trial.
Forty-five individuals with 63 implants with probing depth (PPD) ≥5mm, bleeding on probing (BOP), and radiographic bone loss ≥2mm were included. In the NST (30 implants), submucosal debridement was performed. In the ST (33 implants), a mucoperiosteal flap was raised and surfaces were decontaminated only by debridement as performed in NST. Clinical parameters and radiographs were compared at baseline and after 12 months. Means and standard errors were reported.
PPD considering all implant sites reduced significantly in NST from 4.14±0.25 to 3.25±0.18mm. In ST, PPD also significantly changed (3.74±0.22 to 3.00±0.29mm). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. For deep sites (≥7mm), PPD was 7.82±0.20mm at baseline and reduced to 5.10±0.30mm in NST, while in ST group, it was 7.11±0.11mm and changed to 5.22±0.91mm (between-groups p value=0.51). BOP significantly reduced from ~60 to 35% of all sites in both groups, without significant differences between them. When sites with radiographic bone level ≥3mm at baseline were analyzed, there was a significant difference between groups in bone gain after 12 months in favor of ST (ST=0.78±0.30mm compared to NST=0.25mm±0.13; p=0.03).
Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis present similar clinical outcomes. Bone levels were better improved in ST than NST for sites with higher initial bone loss.
The treatment of peri-implantitis is still a challenge in clinical practice, since less than half of affected implants achieve health after surgical or non-surgical debridement. Considering the lack of clinically relevant differences between these two treatments, non-surgical debridement should be considered the first therapeutic choice for peri-implantitis, mainly mild to moderate cases.
在一项双中心随机试验中比较手术(ST)和非手术(NST)清创治疗种植体周围炎的效果。
共纳入 45 名患者的 63 个种植体,这些种植体的探诊深度(PPD)≥5mm、探诊出血(BOP)、放射影像学骨丧失≥2mm。NST 组(30 个种植体)进行黏膜下清创,ST 组(33 个种植体)则行黏膜骨膜瓣翻起,仅通过 NST 中进行的清创来清除表面污染。在基线和 12 个月时比较临床参数和放射影像学结果。报告平均值和标准误差。
NST 组所有种植体位点的 PPD 从 4.14±0.25mm 显著降低至 3.25±0.18mm。ST 组的 PPD 也显著改变(从 3.74±0.22mm 降至 3.00±0.29mm)。两组间无显著差异。对于深度位点(≥7mm),NST 组的 PPD 基线值为 7.82±0.20mm,降低至 5.10±0.30mm,而 ST 组的 PPD 基线值为 7.11±0.11mm,降低至 5.22±0.91mm(组间 p 值=0.51)。两组的 BOP 均从约 60%显著降低至 35%,两组间无显著差异。当分析基线时放射影像学骨水平≥3mm 的位点时,ST 组在 12 个月时的骨增量优于 NST 组(ST=0.78±0.30mm 比 NST=0.25mm±0.13mm;p=0.03)。
手术和非手术清创治疗种植体周围炎的临床效果相似。对于初始骨丧失较高的位点,ST 组的骨水平改善优于 NST 组。
种植体周围炎的治疗在临床实践中仍然是一个挑战,因为只有不到一半的受影响种植体在手术或非手术清创后能够获得健康。鉴于这两种治疗方法之间没有明显的临床差异,非手术清创应被视为种植体周围炎的首选治疗方法,主要适用于轻度至中度病例。