Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Feb;33(2):184-196. doi: 10.1111/clr.13881. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%).
Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success.
https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.
比较在治疗种植体周围炎的手术过程中,使用艾利希醇空气抛光与生理盐水对种植体表面进行清洁的效果。
在切除性手术干预过程中,随机对种植体表面进行空气抛光(试验组 n=26 名患者/53 个种植体)或生理盐水浸泡的棉纱布处理(对照组 n=31 名患者/40 个种植体)。主要结果是从基线到 12 个月随访时平均探诊出血(BoP)的变化。次要结果是探诊溢脓(SoP)、菌斑指数(Plq)、探诊袋深度(PPD)、边缘骨丧失(MBL)、牙周全口评分(PFMS)和 8 种经典牙周病病原体水平的变化。使用多级回归分析对临床和影像学参数进行分析。使用 Mann-Whitney U 检验分析微生物学结果。
在 12 个月的随访期间,试验组和对照组的 BoP 之间没有差异,也没有发现 Plq、PPD 和 MBL 等次要参数的差异。两组之间,SoP 水平存在显著差异(p=0.035)。未发现对微生物水平有显著影响。试验组有 6 个种植体失,对照组有 10 个种植体失。在 1 年随访时,总共 18 个种植体(19.2%)达到了成功的治疗结果(PPD<5mm,最多 1 个位点的探诊出血,无溢脓且无骨丧失进展>0.5mm)。
在治疗种植体周围炎的切除性手术中,艾利希醇空气抛光作为种植体表面清洁方法,在临床、影像学和微生物学参数方面并不优于生理盐水。两种治疗方法的治疗成功率均较低。
https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.