BACKGROUND: Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS: No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS: No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.