F De Siena1, L Francetti, S Corbella, S Taschieri, M Del Fabbro. 1. Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, Research Centre in Oral Health, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use of two chlorhexidine-based antimicrobial agents as an adjunct to mechanical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty patients with peri-implant mucositis were included in the study and randomized in two groups. In addition to mechanical therapy, group A was treated with chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash, while group B was treated with chlorhexidine 1% gel. Probing depth, plaque index and bleeding index were recorded at each scheduled follow-up visit: ten days, 1 month and 3 months after giving the patients the assigned formulation. Patients had to fill in a questionnaire investigating their satisfaction and ease of use of the product. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients (13 in group A and 10 in group B) attended all the follow-up visits. Chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash and chlorhexidine 1% gel were equally useful in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis leading to the reduction in inflammatory parameters. Probing depth decreased over time in both groups. Patients showed preference for gel formulation even if they found it more difficult to use. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive treatment with different chlorhexidine formulations was beneficial to the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Besides, no differences could be found between 0.2% mouthwash and 1% gel.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the use of two chlorhexidine-based antimicrobial agents as an adjunct to mechanical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with peri-implant mucositis were included in the study and randomized in two groups. In addition to mechanical therapy, group A was treated with chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash, while group B was treated with chlorhexidine 1% gel. Probing depth, plaque index and bleeding index were recorded at each scheduled follow-up visit: ten days, 1 month and 3 months after giving the patients the assigned formulation. Patients had to fill in a questionnaire investigating their satisfaction and ease of use of the product. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients (13 in group A and 10 in group B) attended all the follow-up visits. Chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash and chlorhexidine 1% gel were equally useful in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis leading to the reduction in inflammatory parameters. Probing depth decreased over time in both groups. Patients showed preference for gel formulation even if they found it more difficult to use. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive treatment with different chlorhexidine formulations was beneficial to the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Besides, no differences could be found between 0.2% mouthwash and 1% gel.
Authors: Natalie J Wood; Howard F Jenkinson; Sean A Davis; Stephen Mann; Dominic J O'Sullivan; Michele E Barbour Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 3.896