RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the most effective method for mechanical inter-dental plaque removal between inter-dental brushes (IDB) and dental floss (DF), in addition to toothbrushing in patients affected by peri-implant mucositis (PIM); to identify possible factors related to the patient or to the single implant-supported element that could influence plaque accumulation and inflammation of peri-implant tissues. METHODS: Forty patients with PIM were recruited. They were randomly assigned to two different groups depending on inter-dental device used (IDB or DF). At baseline (T0), interproximal area (IA), interproximal emergence angle of the implant crown (A°) and manual dexterity (evaluated with Purdue Pegboard) have been recorded. At 14 days (T1), the inter-dental cleaning devices have been inverted between groups. After 14 days (T2), the Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index (GI) have been recorded. A questionnaire has been submitted to a patient for the analysis of preferences at T0, T1 and T2. RESULTS: Both inter-dental cleaning devices were effective in reducing PI and GI in the inter-dental area after 14 days of use. GI reduction was influenced by manual dexterity of the dominant hand. No significant differences were found for PI and GI at the variation of IA and A°. CONCLUSION: IDB was the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal in all subjects regardless of their manual dexterity. DF seems to be more effective than IDB only in subjects with good dexterity.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Researchers have recently drawn attention to the analysis of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcus fluid (PISF) for the implementation of the diagnosis of periodontal and peri-implant disease. Nevertheless, the measurements of volume and biomarkers concentration can be critically biased when data collected from studies with parallel group design are compared, given the technical difficulties, methodological variables, as well as the variability of crevicular fluid characteristics among different individuals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the GCF and PISF volumes in healthy and diseased sites belonging to the same patient. METHOD: Ten patients presenting a periodontally healthy tooth, a tooth with periodontitis, an implant with healthy peri-implant tissues and an implant with peri-implantitis were enrolled. Samples of GCF and PISF were collected from each site of interest and their volume measured with a Periotron 8000 device. Non-parametric statistical analysis was performed to test the significance of the differences in GCF and PISF volumes between i) sites of teeth and dental implants with the same condition of health or disease and ii) healthy and diseased sites of both teeth and dental implants subgroups. The correlation between probing pocket depth (PPD) and fluid production was also tested (p<0.05). RESULTS: Healthy periodontal and peri-implant tissues produced comparable amounts of fluid that was significantly lower than in diseased sites (p<0.05). In the presence of diagnosed disease, the volumes of GCF and PISF were similar, too. The correlation between PPD and fluid production was significant only in healthy sites (PPD/GCF, ρ=0.890, p<0.001; PPD/PISF, ρ=0.810; p<0.005). CONCLUSION: The periodontal and peri-implant tissues behaved similarly in terms of fluid production in condition of both health and active disease.
