ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the clinical efficacies of subgingival glycine air polishing and ultrasonic scaling combined with 0.12% chlorhexidine rinsing on patients with early peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and early peri-implantitis).@*Methods@#Twenty-two systemically healthy patients with totally 42 implants and early peri-implant diseases, were recruited in this study. The patients were randomly divided into the test group and the control group. Patients in the test group were treated with subgingival glycine air polishing and patients in the control group were treated with ultrasonic scalers combined with 0.12% chlorhexidine rinsing. Periodontal parameters such as probing depth, bleeding index, plaque index and clinical attachment loss, at baseline and 2 months after treatment, respectively, were collected and compared between the test and control groups.@*Results@#For the natural teeth, the parameters of probing depth, bleeding index, plaque index and attachment loss in the two groups were significantly improved after treatments (medians were 0.48 mm vs 0.22 mm, 1.00 vs-0.13, 0.38 vs 0.50, 0.48 mm vs 0.22 mm, respectively for test and control group). There was no statistical difference of median between the two groups after treatment except for that of the attachment loss (medians, 0.48 mm vs 0.22 mm, P=0.034). For the implants, differences of parameters in the two groups at baseline were insignificant. After treatments, the probing depths significantly decreased by 0.67 mm and 0.33 mm in the test group and the control group, respectively. The inter-group differences, however, were insignificant. Significant difference of the bleeding index after treatment was found in the test group (P=0.019), but not in the control group. No adverse reactions were found on patients in the two groups after treatments.@*Conclusions@#Efficacy of subgingival glycine air polishing and ultrasonic scaling combined with 0.12% chlorhexidine rinsing is competitive on patients with early peri-implant diseases. However, the former treatment may be more effective oncontrolling the early peri-implant inflammation.
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the incidence of technical complications of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Chinese patients with a history of moderate or severe periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients(PHP) and analyze the effects of interproximal papillae patterns on food impaction and efficacy of plaque control.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 103 partially edentulous patients treated with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between December 2009 and December 2012 for a minimum 1-year follow-up period were recruited from Department of Periodontology, Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology. Based on the initial periodontal examination, the participants were divided into three groups: 30 PHP, 36 moderate periodontally compromised patients(mPCP) and 37 severe periodontally compromised patients(sPCP). Implant survival/loss, technical complications, plaque index, papilla index, food impaction and degree of proximal contact tightness of each patient were assessed around the implants at follow-up. According to the implant papilla index, the implants were divided into two groups: the "filling" group with the mesial and distal aspects with papilla index=3 and the "no filling" group with at least one aspect with papilla index<3. Data on implant survival, technical complications were analyzed. Comparisons of the incidence of technical complications were performed between the patients with different periodontal conditions with chi-square or Fisher's exact test. The influences of the interproximal papillae loss on food impaction and efficacy of plaque control were estimated with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The total implant survival rate was 100%(162/162) for all three groups. Technical complications were as following: veneer fractures(1.9%, 3/162), abutment screw loosening(1.9%, 3/162), prosthetic screw loosening(3.1%, 5/162) and decementation(3.1%, 5/162) in all subjects. No implant/screw fracture was noted. The incidence of technical complications in sPCP, mPCP and PHP did not yield statistically significant differences(P>0.05). The proportion of the implant with the mesial and distal papilla index=3 in the sPCP was less than that in the PHP and mPCP. The interproximal papillae loss did not appear to affect the food impaction and the plaque index in all three groups(P>0.05). However, for the PHP, the accumulation of plaque at buccal aspect was more in the "no filling" group compared with the "filling" group (implant plaque index[M(Q)]: 1[1] vs 0[0]), and for the sPCP, the accumulation of plaque at lingual aspect was more in the "filling" group compared with the "no filling" group(implant plaque index[M(Q)]: 1[1] vs 0[1], (P<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>The patients with a history of severe periodontitis did not exhibit more technical problems compared with the periodontally healthy patients. The interproximal papillae loss did not show a negative impact on the plaque control and food impaction. However, for the sPCP, changing the morphology and the position of the interproximal contact point to reduce the interdental black triangle may lead to accumulation of plaque at lingual aspect. More attention should be placed on the morphology design of prosthesis, but not the papillae filling up the interproximal space.</p>