View clinical trials related to Peri-implant Mucositis.
Filter by:In patients presenting peri-implant mucositis, effective sub-mucosal debridement is crucial to prevent peri-implantitis. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the 3-month clinical and microbiological effects of a locally delivered liquid desiccant agent with molecular hygroscopic properties, in association with sub-gingival manual debridement, in sites with peri-implant mucositis. Twenty-three patients presenting at least one implant with no radiographically detectable bone loss, a pocket probing depth ≥ 4 mm and bleeding on probing, were included in a 3-month randomized, parallel-groups, single-blind, prospective study. At baseline (T0), patients were randomly assigned to receive a desiccant liquid agent with molecular hygroscopic properties before debridement (Test-Group), or a Chlorhexidine 1% disinfectant gel after debridement (Control-Group). Treatments were performed also after 7 and 14 days. Peri- implant soft tissues assessment (PPD, BOP, mBI, VPI, mPLI) and microbial sampling were assessed at baseline and at 3-month follow-up (T1).
The present study aimed to investigate clinically the cleaning effectiveness of different treatment modalities, that is, oral irrigator or interdental brush usage addition to routine brushing and examine TGF-β1, IL-1β, t-PA, and PAI-1 levels in periimplant crevicular fluid of patients with periimplant mucositis. The null hypothesis was that oral irrigators would be effective compared to interdental brush in the oral care of individuals who use implant-supported protheses.
Objectives: To assess the levels of TNF-α, PGE2, RANKL, RANK, OPG, which are immunological markers of peri-implant disease and F. nucleatum, P. gingivalis, T. denticola, T. forsythia, P. intermedia, S. oralis, which are microbiological agents of peri-implantitis, in areas where SLA, fluorine-modified and anodized implant surfaces are used. Material and methods: In this study, 71 implants of 37 patients were assessed. The patients were grouped according to the surface characteristics of the implants. Group 1: SLA surface, Group 2: Fluorine modifying surface, Group 3:Anodization surface Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depths (PD), clinical attachment levels (CAL) and keratinized tissue width (KTW) were measured. Peri-implant sulcus fluid and subgingival plaque samples were collected. Results: PI was found to be significantly lowest in Group 1, higher in Group 3. Group 3 implants were found to have more bleeding on probing significantly. It was found to be higher peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in Group 3. GI, PD, CAL, KTW were not found to differ between groups. No significant differences were found between TNF-α, PGE2, RANKL, RANK, OPG. While F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, T. denticola and P. intermedia were found to be significant highest in Group 3, P. gingivalis and S. oralis were found to be high in Group 2. Conclusion: Peri-implantitis rate, BOP and PI were found to be higher in Group 3. F. nucleatum, T. forsythia, T. denticola, and P. intermedia were found to be significantly high in Group 3 implants. This situation can be associated with the porous structure of anodized surface.
Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of a 0.03% chlorhexidine (CHX) and 0.05% cetyl pyridinium chloride (CPC) mouth rinse, as an adjunct to professionally and patient-administered mechanical plaque removal, in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Material and Methods: Patients displaying peri-implant mucositis in, at least, one implant were included in this randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. Subjects received a conventional professional prophylaxis (at baseline and 6-month visits) and were instructed to regular oral hygiene practices and to rinse, twice daily, during one year, with a 0.03% CHX and 0.05% CPC mouth rinse, or a placebo. Clinical, radiographic and microbiological data were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Disease resolution was defined as the absence of bleeding on probing (BOP). Repeated measures ANOVA, Student-t and chi square tests were used.
Objective: This study investigated how patients' knowledge, attitude, and perceptions influence their oral hygiene practices as well as peri-implant health. Materials and Methods: Participants with single implant crowns placed in 2007-2011 completed a questionnaire that examined their knowledge, attitude, and perceptions on oral hygiene practices and peri-implant health before receiving a periodontal examination, prophylaxis, and oral hygiene education. Clinical parameters recorded were peri-implant probing depths and plaque index, width of keratinized mucosa, implant crown characteristics, reason for tooth loss, and diagnosis of peri-implant health.
Peri-implantitis is defined as inflammation in the mucosa surrounding an oral implant with loss of supporting bone. The goals of peri-implantitis treatment are to resolve inflammation and to arrest the progression of disease. It is important to systematically gather information on the effect of surgical peri-implant treatment and to assess different protocols regarding chair-side maintenance of peri-implant tissue after surgery The aims of this clinical investigation are to evaluate the clinical, microbiological and radiographic outcomes of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis and to evaluate the efficacy of 2 supportive treatment protocols based on the use of titanium cyrettes or by the use of a flexible, biodegradable chitosan brush. Furthermore, to evaluate the impact of this therapy on selected biochemical markers associated with chronic inflammation and bone tissue destruction.
This study seeks to test the recently discovered anti-inflammatory action of statins on inflamed mucosa surrounding dental implants. Hypothesis: The application of 1.2% simvastatin gel will decrease peri-implant inflammation. The pilot study will involve 44 subjects divided into a test and control group. The test group shall receive topical simvastatin gel administered around the implant with a blunt tipped needle. The control group will receive a placebo. Inflammatory state shall be determined at baseline as well as follow up visits at 24 hours, 1 week, and 1 month by clinical indices of inflammation as well as biochemical markers of inflammation gathered from around the implants.
Bleeding on probing demonstrated to have high specificity with certain level of sensitivity to detect periodontal disease. Again, understanding the weak hemidesmosome attachment to the implant surface is imperative to discern on the probe penetration extent and subsequent bleeding. In the presence of inflammation, bleeding should be present indicating high sensitivity when probing deeper sites; nevertheless the lack thereof in healthy condition does not seem to translate high specificity. In this sense, it is noteworthy to mention that the mucogingival shift after implant placement often decreases the presence of keratinized mucosa, triggering a greater inflammatory condition on the peri-implant tissues. Thereupon, bleeding on probing, although might reliably indicate presence of disease, it does not seem to be a suitable diagnostic parameter. On the other side, suppuration characterizes the necrosis of peri-implant tissues, being rich in polymorphonuclear cells and as such, a sensitive indicator of bone turnover. In this sense, it must be noted that, if detected in early stages where bone resorption has not occurred yet, it might be a consequence of a foreign body reaction (i.e., residual cement or floss). Therefore, in the diagnosis of peri-implantitis, radiographic examination must be always incorporated to the clinical assessment as the 'gold standard'. Hence, the aim of this case-control study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of peri-implantitis-related clinical parameters compared to otherwise healthy dental implants.
This is a pilot study. The investigators hypothesize that the peri-implant soft tissue response to de novo plaque accumulation is similar to that of normal gingival tissue in the same subjects. The investigators propose to conduct a controlled clinical trial to evaluate peri-implant soft tissue response to de novo plaque accumulation in comparison to the response of gingival tissue in the same subjects