Bengtsson Viveca Wallin, Aoki Akira, Mizutani Koji, Lindahl Christel, Renvert Stefan
Department of Oral Health, Faculty of Oral Health Science, Kristianstad University, 291 88, Kristianstad, Sweden.
Department of Periodontology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Institute of Science Tokyo, Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Int J Implant Dent. 2025 Jan 24;11(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s40729-025-00591-0.
The study assessed the clinical outcomes following treatment of peri-implant mucositis using Er:YAG laser or an ultrasonic device over six months. Patients' experience of pain, aesthetics, and Quality of life were further assessed.
One dental implant, per included patient, diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis underwent treatment with an Er:YAG laser (test) or an ultrasonic scaler (control) randomly. Treatments were performed at baseline and months three and six. At each session, oral hygiene was instructed after plaque registration, and the patient was guided in proper cleaning technique using a toothbrush and interproximal aids as needed. Full mouth bleeding on probing (FMBoP), full mouth plaque score (FMPS), implant bleeding on probing (BoP), implant mean graded bleeding (mBI), implant probing pocket depts (PPD), implant suppuration and bone levels were assessed. Oral health-related Quality of life (OHQoL) and visual analog scales (VAS), which reflect aesthetic satisfaction and pain of the treatment, were also evaluated.
Forty-six patients were included. FMBoP was significantly reduced from 30.1 to 21.5% (test) (p < 0.001) respectively from 35.0% to 30% (control) (p < 0.01). FMPS showed significant reduction from 61.5 to 32.7% (test) (p < 0.001) and from 58.7 to 39.1% (control) (p < 0.001). At the implant BoP reduced from 89.0 to 55.7% (test) (p < 0.001) respectively from 94.9 to 63.7% (control) (p < 0.001). mBI was reduced from 1.3 to 0.6 (test) (p < 0.01) and from 1.9 to 0.8 (control) (p < 0.001). Distribution of "no bleeding" increased from 13 to 61% (test) (p < 0.05) and from 0 to 35% (control) (p < 0.05). At month three, statistically significant intergroup differences were shown for PPD ≥ 4 mm with 43.5% (test) respectively 73.9% (control) (p < 0.05). At month six, statistically significant intergroup differences, were shown for FMBoP 21.5% (test) respectively 30% (control) (p < 0.05) and for plaque score at the implant 4.0% (test) respectively 26% (control) (p < 0.05). Less pain was reported in the laser group at three days 0.08 (test) respectively 0.2 (control) (p < 0.05).
Treatment of peri-implant mucositis was effective regardless of whether the treatment was performed with an Er:YAG laser or an ultrasonic scaler. Fewer diseased sites were diagnosed at six months following laser treatment.
Registered at www.
gov : study no, NCT05772299.
本研究评估了使用铒激光或超声设备治疗种植体周围黏膜炎六个月后的临床结果。进一步评估了患者的疼痛体验、美观情况和生活质量。
纳入的每位患者的一枚诊断为种植体周围黏膜炎的牙种植体，随机接受铒激光（试验组）或超声洁治器（对照组）治疗。在基线、三个月和六个月时进行治疗。每次治疗时，在记录菌斑后指导口腔卫生，并根据需要使用牙刷和牙间隙清洁辅助工具指导患者正确的清洁技术。评估全口探诊出血（FMBoP）、全口菌斑评分（FMPS）、种植体探诊出血（BoP）、种植体平均分级出血（mBI）、种植体探诊袋深度（PPD）、种植体化脓情况和骨水平。还评估了与口腔健康相关的生活质量（OHQoL）和反映美观满意度及治疗疼痛的视觉模拟量表（VAS）。
纳入46例患者。FMBoP分别从30.1%显著降至21.5%（试验组）（p < 0.001）和从35.0%降至30%（对照组）（p < 0.01）。FMPS从61.5%显著降至32.7%（试验组）（p < 0.001）和从58.7%降至39.1%（对照组）（p < 0.001）。种植体BoP分别从89.0%降至55.7%（试验组）（p < 0.001）和从94.9%降至63.7%（对照组）（p < 0.001）。mBI从1.3降至0.6（试验组）（p < 0.01）和从1.9降至0.8（对照组）（p < 0.001）。“无出血”的比例从13%增至61%（试验组）（p < 0.05）和从0增至35%（对照组）（p < 0.05）。在三个月时，PPD≥4 mm的组间差异具有统计学意义，试验组为43.5%，对照组为73.9%（p < 0.05）。在六个月时，FMBoP的组间差异具有统计学意义，试验组为21.5%，对照组为30%（p < 0.05），种植体菌斑评分的组间差异也具有统计学意义，试验组为4.0%，对照组为26%（p < 0.05）。激光组在三天时报告的疼痛较轻，试验组为0.08，对照组为0.2（p < 0.05）。
无论使用铒激光还是超声洁治器进行治疗，种植体周围黏膜炎的治疗都是有效的。激光治疗六个月后诊断出的患病部位较少。
