LAUSR.org creates dashboard-style pages of related content for over 1.5 million academic articles. Sign Up to like articles & get recommendations!

Photo-/ mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination approaches in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review.

Photo from wikipedia

AIM To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive/alternative photo-/mechanical and physical implant-surface decontamination approaches compared to a standard instrumentation in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Randomized controlled clinical… Click to show full abstract

AIM To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive/alternative photo-/mechanical and physical implant-surface decontamination approaches compared to a standard instrumentation in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) investigating the efficacy of adjunctive or alternative photo-/mechanical/physical measures for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment without (PICOS 1) or with (PICOS 2) additional decontamination methods performed in test and control groups with changing inflammation parameters. Changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleeding index (BI), or bleeding on probing (BOP)), suppuration (SUP) and PD values were considered as primary outcomes. RESULTS Six articles describing five original RCTs were eligible for analysis. Based on two RCTs, the adjunctive/alternative use of an air polishing with glycine or erythritol powders did not improve BOP reduction compared to a standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). Based on one RCT, alternative use of titanium brushes resulted in significantly higher BOP reduction compared to either air polishing or a standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). During reconstructive therapy and as an adjunct to implantoplasty, use of a titanium brush did not have a benefit on the BOP and mean PD reductions compared to the control group (i.e., implantoplasty + mechanical and chemical implant surface decontamination; 1 RCT; PICOS 2). An Er:YAG laser resulted in significantly higher PD reduction after 6 months (1 RCT), whereas no difference between the test and respective controls could be detected after 1 and 2 years (1 RCT). Additionally, the use of the Er:YAG laser was not associated with improved BOP reductions over respective controls (2 RCTs; PICOS 2). CONCLUSIONS Due to the limited available data, clinical efficacy of photo-/mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis therapy is inconclusive. However, titanium brushes may be beneficial in reducing signs of inflammation.

Keywords: surface decontamination; mechanical physical; photo mechanical; decontamination; implant surface

Journal Title: Journal of clinical periodontology
Year Published: 2023

Link to full text (if available)


Share on Social Media:                               Sign Up to like & get
recommendations!

Related content

More Information              News              Social Media              Video              Recommended



                Click one of the above tabs to view related content.