Do systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole during the non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment phase prevent the need for future surgical treatment? A retrospective long-term cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this retrospective long-term follow-up of a 3-month RCT was to assess whether non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive systemic antibiotics influenced the need for additional surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in an aftercare programme following non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment, with or without systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole, were analysed. Data had previously been collected pre-treatment (T0) and 3 months after treatment (T1) and were additionally collected during subsequent aftercare visits, until the final assessment (T2). Primary outcome was the need for additional surgical peri-implantitis therapy during the aftercare programme, analysed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Secondary outcomes involved clinical parameters, assessed using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (22 AB- group, 23 AB+ group) were included. The mean follow-up time between T1 and T2 was 35.9 months (SD = 21.0). 73.9% of the AB+ group and 50.0% of the AB- group did not receive additional surgical therapy (log-rank test, p = .110). The adjusted Cox regression model did not provide a significant result for antibiotics (ß = .441, 95% CI = 0.159-1.220, p = .115). Univariable regression analysis highlighted the influence of baseline peri-implant pocket depth on the need for surgical treatment (ß = 1.446, 95% CI = 1.035-2.020, p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole administered during non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment do not seem to prevent the need for additional surgical therapy in the long term, during a structured aftercare programme.

Systemic antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A single-blind RCT.

AIM: The aim of this single-blind RCT was to evaluate the adjunctive clinical and microbiological effect of systemic amoxicillin (AMX) plus metronidazole (MTZ) to non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (N = 62) with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to receive full-mouth mechanical debridement and decontamination and use of chlorhexidine (control group) or combined with antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ (test group). Primary outcome was change in bleeding score from baseline (T0 ) to 3-month follow-up (T3 ). Secondary parameters were plaque, suppuration, PPD, CAL, bone level, microbiology, adverse events and need for additional surgery. Data were analysed with linear multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: 57 patients with 122 implants completed 3-month follow-up. Both groups showed major clinical improvements at T3 in both peri-implant and periodontal parameters. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for any of the primary or secondary parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ does not improve clinical and microbiological outcomes of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment and should not be routinely recommended. Although complete disease resolution may be difficult to achieve, meticulously performed full-mouth non-surgical treatment, achieving a high level of daily oral hygiene and healthy periodontal tissues, can significantly improve the starting position of the subsequent (surgical) peri-implantitis treatment phase.

Effects of a single topical doxycycline administration adjunctive to mechanical debridement in patients with persistent/recurrent periodontitis but acceptable oral hygiene during supportive periodontal therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a slow release doxycycline gel (SRD) adjunctively administered to non-surgical therapy in subjects with recurrent or persistent periodontitis but acceptable oral hygiene during supportive periodontal care. MATERIAL & METHODS: In this single blind, parallel group, multicentre study, 202 of 203 recruited periodontal maintenance subjects with recurrent or persistent periodontitis were randomly assigned to subgingival ultrasonic/sonic instrumentation (USI) with (test) or without (control) subsequent administration of SRD in all residual periodontal pockets ≥4 mm. Intergroup differences in probing depth, BOP reductions, treatment time, probing attachment levels were evaluated at 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the inter-group difference in absolute change of probing pocket depth (PPD) 3, 6 and 12 months after intervention. RESULTS: At baseline, the two groups were comparable. At 3 months, the test group showed a significantly higher decrease in mean probing depth than the control group at 3 months (mean difference = 0.11 mm, 95% CI 0.03-0.19 mm, p = 0.003). Administration of SRD resulted in significantly greater odds of transition of bleeding pockets ≥5 mm to a category of non bleeding sites with PPD ≤4 mm at 3 and 6 months (O.R. = 1.4, 95% CI 1.2-1.8 at 3 months). At 6 months, SRD benefit was observed only in the deeper pockets. 7.5% of subjects (no significant difference between test and control) showed disease progression (attachment loss ≥2 mm) and were exited from the study. No difference in the incidence of adverse events was observed between groups. CONCLUSION: The trial results show that topically administered SRD may provide short-term benefit in controlling inflammation and deep pockets in treated periodontal patients participating in a secondary prevention programme and able to maintain a satisfactory level of oral hygiene.

Enamel matrix proteins in the regenerative therapy of deep intrabony defects.

AIM: This prospective multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial was designed to compare the clinical outcomes of papilla preservation flap surgery with or without the application of enamel matrix proteins (EMD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 172 patients with advanced chronic periodontitis were recruited in 12 centers in 7 countries. All patients had at least one intrabony defect of > or =3mm. Heavy smokers (> or =20 cigarettes/day) were excluded. The surgical procedures included access for root instrumentation using either the simplified or the modified papilla preservation flap in order to obtain optimal tissue adaptation and primary closure. After debridement, roots were conditioned for 2 min with a gel containing 24% EDTA. EMD was applied in the test subjects, and omitted in the controls. Postsurgically, a strict plaque control protocol was followed. At baseline and 1 year following the interventions, clinical attachment levels (CAL), pocket probing depths (PPD), recession (REC), full-mouth plaque scores and full-mouth bleeding scores were assessed. A total of 166 patients were available for the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 86 test and 86 control patients presented with similar subject and defect characteristics. On average, the test defects gained 3.1+/-1.5 mm of CAL, while the control defects yielded a significantly lower CAL gain of 2.5+/-1.5 mm. Pocket reduction was also significantly higher in the test group (3.9+/-1.7 mm) when compared to the controls (3.3+/-1.7 mm). A multivariate analysis indicated that the treatment, the clinical centers, cigarette smoking, baseline PPD, and defect corticalisation significantly influenced CAL gains. A frequency distribution analysis of the studied outcomes indicated that EMD increased the predictability of clinically significant results (CAL gains > or =4 mm) and decreased the probability of obtaining negligible or no gains in CAL (CAL gains <2 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial indicated that regenerative periodontal surgery with EMD offers an additional benefit in terms of CAL gains, PPD reductions and predictability of outcomes with respect to papilla preservation flaps alone.