scholarly journals Treatment of Periimplantitis - Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial – 18 Months Results

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Schlee ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang ◽  
Thomas Stumpf ◽  
Urs Brodbeck ◽  
Florian Rathe
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Regenerative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Pocket Depth ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Probing Pocket Depth ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Bone To Implant Contact

Background: this RCT assesses the 18 months clinical outcomes after regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after replacement of the restoration. Results: Mean of PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 was 100 % BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8 % and at T3 to 35.3 %. Suppuration could be found 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. Radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at me-sial and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites (T0) and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.

scholarly journals Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 3475
Author(s):  
Markus Schlee ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang ◽  
Thomas Stumpf ◽  
Urs Brodbeck ◽  
Dieter Bosshardt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Regenerative Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Pocket Depth ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Probing Pocket Depth ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
The Mean

Aim of the study: This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration, and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after the replacement of the restoration. Results: The mean PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 were 100%, BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8% and at T3 to 35.3%. Suppuration was found to be at a level of 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. The radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to the implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at mesial sites and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites at T0 and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and the improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.

Encode Protocol Versus Conventional Protocol for Single Implant Restoration: A Prospective 2-Year Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaafar Abduo ◽  
Choy Lin Lee ◽  
Golnaz Sarfarazi ◽  
Bradley Xue ◽  
Roy Judge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Pocket Depth ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Probing Pocket Depth ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
Consistent Increase ◽  
Implant Restoration

The Encode protocol for restoring single dental implants simplifies the implant impression technique by using a specially coded transmucosal healing abutment. It allows recording of the implant position without the removal of healing abutment. This prospective randomized controlled clinical trial compares the 2-year clinical performance of the Encode and the conventional protocols for restoring single implants. A total of 47 implants were randomly allocated for restoration by the Encode (24 implants) and the conventional (23 implants) protocols. The implants were reviewed after 2 years to evaluate patient satisfaction, esthetics, prosthesis cleansability, mucosal health, bleeding on probing (BoP), metallic discoloration, probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone level (MBL), and quality of the proximal and occlusal contacts. In addition, all forms complications were reported. Twenty Encode and 17 conventional implants were reviewed. For all the variables, the 2 protocols were comparable. A consistent increase of open proximal contacts was detected for the 2 protocols. Two Encode (10.0%) and 4 conventional (21.1%) crowns had screw loosening that was predominantly associated with cross-pins. This had led to the failure of 2 conventional crowns. Three Encode (15.0%) and 2 conventional (11.8%) crowns displayed ceramic chipping. The Encode and the conventional crowns had survival rates of 100.0% and 89.5%, respectively. From the biologic, prosthetic and esthetic perspectives, the Encode and the conventional protocols provided a comparable clinical outcome over 2-year duration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document