Andrea Blasi1, Vincenzo Iorio-Siciliano1, Carina Pacenza2, Francesca Pomingi3, Sergio Matarasso1, Giulio Rasperini4. 1. Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples, Italy. 2. Department of Periodontology, University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 3. Private Practice, Piacenza, Italy. 4. Department of Surgical Reconstructive and Diagnostic Science, Unit of Periodontology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different instruments on biofilm removal from implant supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was designed as comparative multicenter clinical study including patients proceeding from the Milan, Naples, and Buenos Aires, with a peri-implant mucositis. Implants enrolled for the study were allocated in 4 groups and treated with ultrasonic scalers with plastic tips, with titanium curettes, with airflow with glycine powder, and with rubber cup and polishing paste, respectively. mPI was assessed at baseline, immediately after therapy, at 1, 3, and 6 months. mBI, PD, and REC were assessed at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. All parameters were recorded on six sites per implant. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare groups and centers. A generalized linear model for repeated measures was chosen for inter-group comparison. An intra-group comparison was performed with repeated measure ANOVA test to assess differences between baseline and recalls. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (39 males, 50 females) were enrolled in the study, and 141 implants were available for the analysis. 55 implants were enrolled in University of Buenos Aires, 32 in University of Milan, and 54 in University of Naples. There were no significant differences between the four groups in inflammatory status reduction of peri-implant mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical therapy is effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis. Sonic scaler with plastic tip and rubber cup with polishing paste showed higher efficacy when compared with titanium curettes or airflow with glycine powder.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of different instruments on biofilm removal from implant supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was designed as comparative multicenter clinical study including patients proceeding from the Milan, Naples, and Buenos Aires, with a peri-implant mucositis. Implants enrolled for the study were allocated in 4 groups and treated with ultrasonic scalers with plastic tips, with titanium curettes, with airflow with glycine powder, and with rubber cup and polishing paste, respectively. mPI was assessed at baseline, immediately after therapy, at 1, 3, and 6 months. mBI, PD, and REC were assessed at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. All parameters were recorded on six sites per implant. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare groups and centers. A generalized linear model for repeated measures was chosen for inter-group comparison. An intra-group comparison was performed with repeated measure ANOVA test to assess differences between baseline and recalls. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (39 males, 50 females) were enrolled in the study, and 141 implants were available for the analysis. 55 implants were enrolled in University of Buenos Aires, 32 in University of Milan, and 54 in University of Naples. There were no significant differences between the four groups in inflammatory status reduction of peri-implant mucosa. CONCLUSIONS: Non-surgical therapy is effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis. Sonic scaler with plastic tip and rubber cup with polishing paste showed higher efficacy when compared with titanium curettes or airflow with glycine powder.