OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of mechanical anti-infective therapies for mucositis and peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subjects with at least one dental implant were assigned to healthy (n=10), mucositis (n=12) or peri-implantitis (n=13) groups. Implants with mucositis or peri-implantitis were decontaminated by means of teflon curettes and abrasive sodium carbonate air-powder, performed by an open flap for peri-implantitis and without surgery for mucositis. Visible plaque (PI), marginal bleeding (MB), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), probing depth (PD) and relative clinical attachment level (rCAL) were assessed at baseline and at 3 months after therapies. At the same time points, submucosal plaque samples were collected from each implant and analyzed by Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization for 40 bacterial species. RESULTS: All clinical parameters improved at 3 months post-therapy in mucositis and peri-implantitis groups (P<0.05). The mean reduction in rCAL (+/-SD) was 1.4+/-1.2 mm and 2.3+/-1.6 mm, and it was 1.3+/-1.2 mm and 3.1+/-1.7 mm in PD (+/-SD) for mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively. Levels of Treponema denticola, Tanerella forsythia and Parvimonas micra, and of Fusobacterium nucleatum ss nucleatum, were significantly reduced after peri-implantitis therapy and after mucositis therapy, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, counts of Porphyromons gingivalis, Treponema socranskii and the proportions of red complex were reduced in both groups at 3 months after treatments (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Mechanical therapies alone were effective in treating mucositis and peri-implantitis over a period of 3 months. The open debridement procedure showed clinical and microbiological benefits on the treatment of peri-implantitis and could be safely used as a standard control group for future studies.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of mechanical anti-infective therapies for mucositis and peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subjects with at least one dental implant were assigned to healthy (n=10), mucositis (n=12) or peri-implantitis (n=13) groups. Implants with mucositis or peri-implantitis were decontaminated by means of teflon curettes and abrasive sodium carbonate air-powder, performed by an open flap for peri-implantitis and without surgery for mucositis. Visible plaque (PI), marginal bleeding (MB), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), probing depth (PD) and relative clinical attachment level (rCAL) were assessed at baseline and at 3 months after therapies. At the same time points, submucosal plaque samples were collected from each implant and analyzed by Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization for 40 bacterial species. RESULTS: All clinical parameters improved at 3 months post-therapy in mucositis and peri-implantitis groups (P<0.05). The mean reduction in rCAL (+/-SD) was 1.4+/-1.2 mm and 2.3+/-1.6 mm, and it was 1.3+/-1.2 mm and 3.1+/-1.7 mm in PD (+/-SD) for mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively. Levels of Treponema denticola, Tanerella forsythia and Parvimonas micra, and of Fusobacterium nucleatum ss nucleatum, were significantly reduced after peri-implantitis therapy and after mucositis therapy, respectively (P<0.05). In addition, counts of Porphyromons gingivalis, Treponema socranskii and the proportions of red complex were reduced in both groups at 3 months after treatments (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Mechanical therapies alone were effective in treating mucositis and peri-implantitis over a period of 3 months. The open debridement procedure showed clinical and microbiological benefits on the treatment of peri-implantitis and could be safely used as a standard control group for future studies.