LAUSR

AIM The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for treating peri-implant mucositis among prediabetic cigarette-smokers and non-smokers. METHODS Prediabetic and non-diabetic smokers and non-smokers with peri-implant mucositis were included. Patients with peri-implant mucositis were divided into 4 groups as follows: Group-1: Prediabetic smokers with peri-implant mucositis; Group-2: Prediabetic non-smokers with peri-implant mucositis; Group-3: Systemically-healthy smokers with peri-implant mucositis; and Group-4: Systemically-healthy non-smokers with peri-implant mucositis. Hemoglobin A1c levels were measured in all groups prior to MD with adjunct aPDT. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD) were assessed at baseline and at 4- and 12-weeks of follow-up. Sample-size estimation was done and data normality was assessed. Group-comparisons were performed. and P < 0.01 was selected as an indicator of statistical significance. RESULTS Fifteen, 15, 15 and 15 individuals were included in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. At baseline, peri-implant PI, BOP and PD were comparable in all groups. In prediabetic smokers and non-smokers, there was no significant difference in peri-implant PI, BOP and PD at 4- and 12-weeks' follow-up. Among non-diabetic smokers and non-smokes MD with adjunct PDT significant reduced PI (P < 0.01) and PD (P < 0.01) at 4- and 12-weeks' follow-up. CONCLUSION The outcomes of MD with adjunct aPDT for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis are compromised in smokers and non-smokers with prediabetes. In non-diabetic smokers and non-smokers, MD with aPDT is effective for treating peri-implant mucositis.