View clinical trials related to Peri-implantitis.
Filter by:The surgical treatment outcome of patients that have been or are consecutively treated at the University of Malmö, at Blekinge hospital, and at the Dental Clinic of the Sigmund Freud University Vienna will be evaluated on an a regular base; specifically all patients treated since 2014 and those receiving treatment in the future, will be regularly assessed, max. once per year after the 1-year control from the surgical intervention for clinical and radiographic assessment of healing. Clinical peri-implant parameters (e.g., probing pocket depth) and peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) are collected, and a peri-apical radiographic examination is made. Further, from 200 patients treated in the future, the inflammatory peri-implant lesion will be collected and subjected to histological, microbiological, and molecular analysis. The removal of these lesions is a standard procedure and performed in all patients independent of study participation; i.e., the lesion has anyway to be removed during surgery and if the lesions are not stored, they would be thrown.
Various types of periodontal probes (e.g., metal probes, plastic/bendable probes, electronic periodontal probes) are used for peri-implant pocket depth registration; however, depending on the shape and size of the prosthetic restoration an accurate peri-implant pocket registration might be impeded with standard metal probes. There is currently no systematic assessment of which probe is more accurate in peri-implant pocket registration. Therefore, peri-implant pocket registration of 50 patients with a screw-retained prosthetic restoration will be recorded with 3 different periodontal probes; i.e., with a metal probe, with a plastic probe, and with an automatic periodontal probe, before and after removal of the prosthetic restoration.
Smoking is a major risk factor for developing peri-implantitis so the current study is comparing inflammatory markers in smokers versus non smokers to know if they have a potential role in pathogenesis of peri-implantitis
With the growing burden of peri-implantitis around the globe, interest has flourished on the management of this pathology. Nevertheless, lack of consensus exists in the pursuit of a predictable therapy. Different therapeutic modalities have been advocated. Non-surgical therapy as a sole modality is often insufficient to resolve inflammation. Surgical interventions have demonstrated more favorable outcomes. Amongst these, evidence supported the application of resective, reconstructive, or combined approaches to limit progressive bone loss and achieve soft tissue health. Nevertheless, up to date, the most suitable modality remains unknown and the decision-making process derives from the understanding acquired from the management of periodontitis. One critical element regarded to successfully resolve peri-implantitis is to efficiently detoxify the contaminated implant surface. Mechanical, pharmacological and chemical strategies have been proposed to eliminate bacterial plaque and remnants from the implant surface. However, evidence has not demonstrated superiority of a given detoxification agent/strategy. In this sense, the significance of barrier membranes is not yet well understood. Roos-Jansaker in 2014 showed that the additional use of barrier membranes did not improve the outcome. Nevertheless, since then this subject has not been a matter of research.
Electrolytic cleaning is a promising treatment for dental implant decontamination, but this mode of therapy has not yet been clinically tested as an adjunct to the non-surgical treatment of periimplantitis. A prospective clinical and radiographic case series study will be performed to evaluate the clinical performance of the adjunctive use of electrolytic cleaning as an adjunct to a non-surgical therapy protocol that includes curettage of the peri-implant soft tissue. This is study is a proof of principle study, thus, a case series study is selected to start with. If the results of this case series study are favourable, a future study with a clinical trial design is then planned to do.
Macrophage surface markers (CD80, CD163 and CD206) will be evaluated in periodontally healthy gingiva, healthy peri-implant mucosa, and periodontitis and peri-implantitis lesions.
Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition associated with plaque that develops around dental implants, characterized by inflammation and progressive bone loss in the peri-implant area. Bleeding on probing, suppuration, increased pathological pocket depths and/or mucosal recessions are seen with radiographic bone loss in peri-implantitis. When evaluated histologically, the lesion extends to the apical part of the pocket epithelium and contains a large amount of plasma cells, macrophages and neutrophils. In the Peri-implant crevicular fluid analysis, which is one of the most important parameters that enable the biochemical and immunological evaluation of the inflammatory state in the peri-implant region, information about the current inflammatory situation can be obtained by evaluating the content of an osmotic inflammatory exudate originating from the vessels in the gingival plexus. Many surgical and non-surgical methods have been proposed for the treatment of peri-implantitis. Mechanical surface debridement, laser application and air abrasives are a part of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. In this study, we examined the effectiveness of diode laser in addition to mechanical debridement with titanium curettes. In our study, we aimed to compare these two treatments biochemically by determining the changes in interleukin-1β, Interleukin-10, Interleukin-17, RANKL, osteoprotegerin, TWEAK and sclerostin biomarkers in Peri-implant crevicular fluid and clinically.
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is suggested as an adjuvant treatment method to the surgery in peri-implantitis treatment. The primary goal of peri-implantitis therapy is the removal of the causative bacteria from the implant surface and surrounding tissues in order to improve the process of re-osseointegration and achieve long term implant stability. Accordingly, the aims of the study were to evaluate clinical, immunological and microbiological outcomes after surgical therapy of peri-implantitis following PDT.
Evaluate the outcomes of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis with the adjunctive use of electrolytic cleaning (Galvo Surge®). The proposed protocol, focused on the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, will result in a higher percentage of subjects with disease resolution (probing depts ≤ 5mm, absence of BOP and/or SOP and no further bone loss) at 1 year of follow-up.
The study aimed to assess 6- and 12-months evaluation of clinical, microbiological, and radiography outcomes after performing peri-implantitis regenerative surgical therapy with the bovine bone substitute with or without hyaluronic acid. Materials and Methods: The study could be designed as randomized control clinical trial. Patients with a minimum of one or more early, moderate and advanced stages of the peri-implant lesion will be included in the study. After meeting inclusion criteria, during a regenerative surgical procedure, after mucoperiosteal flap elevation and implant surface decontamination, all patients will be randomly divided into two groups: test group in which bovine bone substitute with hyaluronic acid (HA) (Cerabone plus, Botiss, Germany) will be applied for the filling peri-implant bone defects while in the control group peri-implant bone defects will be filled with bovine bone substitute (Cerabone, Botiss, Germany). Bone grafts will be covered in both groups with collagen dermal matrix (Mucoderm, Botiss, Germany). Clinical, radiograph and microbiological outcomes will be followed at 6 and 12 months after the surgical procedure. ISQ implant stability will be measured before, during a surgical procedure, and 7, 15, 30 days, 3, 6 and 12 months after a surgical procedure.