Peri-Implantitis: Application of a Protocol for the Regeneration of Deep Osseous Defects. A Retrospective Case Series.
glycine
peri-implantitis
tetracycline
xenograft
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2021
01 12 2021
Historique:
received:
01
11
2021
revised:
19
11
2021
accepted:
29
11
2021
entrez:
10
12
2021
pubmed:
11
12
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Peri-implantitis is a complex pathology, both in its diagnosis and in the identification of etiological causes. Although we have been studying more and more over the years to try to answer the many questions that remain regarding everything that circulates around this disease which affects implants, nothing has yet been taken as an official consensus regarding its surgical treatment. There are still many proposed protocols, each of which has been shown to have comforting results and promising prospects, but no total predictability. The aim of this case series is to assess the clinical outcomes of a mixed protocol for the regeneration of deep osseous defects. The data and clinical records of 23 patients, with 29 implants affected by peri-implantitis treated surgically in private practice, were analyzed retrospectively. The method used for the surgical treatment was a mixed protocol of mechanical-chemical decontamination and bone regeneration with bovine xenograft. All patients were followed for at least 2 years, averaging 28.9 months (a range of 24-38 months) with a reduction in the probing depth (PD) at one year from the initial 8.14 ± 1.156 mm to 3.72 ± 0.649 mm, and to 4.14 ± 1.093 mm at the final assessment. The differences between assessment time points were always statistically significant. The data regarding bleeding on probing (BoP) and suppuration also showed a statistically significant reduction at the final time point compared to the baseline. Only one patient, at 24 months, still showed BoP, suppuration, and a PD deeper than 5 mm, indicating a recurrence of the disease compared to the initial improvement of the PD (5 mm) at one year. In conclusion, within the limits of this retrospective analysis, it can be affirmed that this combined mechanical-chemical and regenerative decontamination therapy is effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Peri-implantitis is a complex pathology, both in its diagnosis and in the identification of etiological causes. Although we have been studying more and more over the years to try to answer the many questions that remain regarding everything that circulates around this disease which affects implants, nothing has yet been taken as an official consensus regarding its surgical treatment. There are still many proposed protocols, each of which has been shown to have comforting results and promising prospects, but no total predictability. The aim of this case series is to assess the clinical outcomes of a mixed protocol for the regeneration of deep osseous defects.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The data and clinical records of 23 patients, with 29 implants affected by peri-implantitis treated surgically in private practice, were analyzed retrospectively. The method used for the surgical treatment was a mixed protocol of mechanical-chemical decontamination and bone regeneration with bovine xenograft.
RESULTS
All patients were followed for at least 2 years, averaging 28.9 months (a range of 24-38 months) with a reduction in the probing depth (PD) at one year from the initial 8.14 ± 1.156 mm to 3.72 ± 0.649 mm, and to 4.14 ± 1.093 mm at the final assessment. The differences between assessment time points were always statistically significant. The data regarding bleeding on probing (BoP) and suppuration also showed a statistically significant reduction at the final time point compared to the baseline. Only one patient, at 24 months, still showed BoP, suppuration, and a PD deeper than 5 mm, indicating a recurrence of the disease compared to the initial improvement of the PD (5 mm) at one year.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, within the limits of this retrospective analysis, it can be affirmed that this combined mechanical-chemical and regenerative decontamination therapy is effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34886384
pii: ijerph182312658
doi: 10.3390/ijerph182312658
pmc: PMC8656633
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Feb;16(1):9-18
pubmed: 15642026
J Periodontol. 2018 Jun;89 Suppl 1:S267-S290
pubmed: 29926957
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jun;25(6):3589-3597
pubmed: 33170374
Periodontol 2000. 2019 Feb;79(1):190-199
pubmed: 30892766
J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):282-5
pubmed: 18724855
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 Oct;32 Suppl 21:245-253
pubmed: 34642987
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jul;25(7):761-7
pubmed: 23656191
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Dec;28(12):1577-1583
pubmed: 28626970
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Feb;27(2):e68-73
pubmed: 25496020
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994 Mar;5(1):19-29
pubmed: 8038341
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Feb;21(1):154-159
pubmed: 30444054
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jun;30(6):550-558
pubmed: 31009116
Dent J (Basel). 2020 Sep 01;8(3):
pubmed: 32882900
Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987 Dec;2(4):145-51
pubmed: 3507627
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Jun;29(6):583-591
pubmed: 29767434
J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Sep;35(8 Suppl):305-15
pubmed: 18724858
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jan 22;2021:6660052
pubmed: 33553428
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2020 Jan/Feb;35(35):197-206
pubmed: 31923303
J Clin Periodontol. 2018 Jun;45 Suppl 20:S286-S291
pubmed: 29926491
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Jan;25(1):132-6
pubmed: 23350647
J Periodontol. 2009 Sep;80(9):1388-92
pubmed: 19722787
J Periodontal Res. 2011 Feb;46(1):134-40
pubmed: 21108646
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 18:100-123
pubmed: 30306697
J Periodontol. 2016 May;87(5):493-501
pubmed: 26643222
Pak J Pharm Sci. 2016 Sep;29(5 Suppl):1805-1810
pubmed: 28476706
Int J Implant Dent. 2021 Nov 15;7(1):112
pubmed: 34779939
J Wound Care. 2011 Jun;20(6):287-93
pubmed: 21727879
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:491047
pubmed: 26881198
J Periodontol. 2018 Mar;89(3):325-330
pubmed: 29520941
Rev Fr Odontostomatol. 1965 Oct;12(8):1251-60
pubmed: 5215001
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Aug;31(8):768-776
pubmed: 32559322
J Clin Periodontol. 2021 Oct 28;:
pubmed: 34713471
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Aug;12(4):287-94
pubmed: 11488856
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Feb;23(2):182-190
pubmed: 21806683
Int J Implant Dent. 2017 Dec;3(1):33
pubmed: 28718012
J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2016 Jun;46(3):136-51
pubmed: 27382503
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD004970
pubmed: 18425907
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 May;30(5):447-456
pubmed: 30963619
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009 Mar-Apr;24(2):197-204
pubmed: 19492634
J Clin Periodontol. 1995 Mar;22(3):229-34
pubmed: 7790529
Braz Oral Res. 2019;33:e040
pubmed: 31508724