Stefan Renvert1,2,3, Ann-Marie Roos-Jansåker4, Gösta Rutger Persson1,5. 1. Oral Health Sciences, Kristianstad University, Kristianstad, Sweden. 2. School of Dental Science, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden. 4. Department of Periodontology, Public Dental Services, Karlskrona, Sweden. 5. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
AIM: To assess whether the treatment outcome differed between surgical debridement, with or without a bone substitute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one adults with three- or four-wall peri-implant bone defects were enrolled in a 1-year RCT. Surgical debridement (control group), or in combination with a bone substitute (Endobon®) (test group) was performed. RESULTS: Radiographic evidence of defect fill (primary outcome) was only significant in the test group (P = 0.004). At year 1, no bleeding on probing (BOP) in the control and test groups were 7/20 (35%) and 10/21 (47.6%), respectively (χ2 = 0.67, P = 0.41). Plaque scores did not differ by study group at baseline (P = 0.31), or at year 1 (P = 0.08). Mid-buccal soft tissue recession changes did not differ by groups (P = 0.76). Successful treatment outcome (defect fill ≥1.0 mm, PPD values at implant ≤5 mm, no BOP, and no suppuration was identified in 1/20 (5.0%) control, and 9/21 (42.9%) test individuals (F = 7, 9, P < 0.01). Number needed to treat analysis identified an absolute risk reduction of 32.8% in benefit of the test procedure. (F = 7, 9, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Successful treatment outcome using a bone substitute was more predictable when a composite therapeutic endpoint was considered.
AIM: To assess whether the treatment outcome differed between surgical debridement, with or without a bone substitute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one adults with three- or four-wall peri-implant bone defects were enrolled in a 1-year RCT. Surgical debridement (control group), or in combination with a bone substitute (Endobon®) (test group) was performed. RESULTS: Radiographic evidence of defect fill (primary outcome) was only significant in the test group (P = 0.004). At year 1, no bleeding on probing (BOP) in the control and test groups were 7/20 (35%) and 10/21 (47.6%), respectively (χ2 = 0.67, P = 0.41). Plaque scores did not differ by study group at baseline (P = 0.31), or at year 1 (P = 0.08). Mid-buccal soft tissue recession changes did not differ by groups (P = 0.76). Successful treatment outcome (defect fill ≥1.0 mm, PPD values at implant ≤5 mm, no BOP, and no suppuration was identified in 1/20 (5.0%) control, and 9/21 (42.9%) test individuals (F = 7, 9, P < 0.01). Number needed to treat analysis identified an absolute risk reduction of 32.8% in benefit of the test procedure. (F = 7, 9, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Successful treatment outcome using a bone substitute was more predictable when a composite therapeutic endpoint was considered.
Authors: Tassiane Panta Wagner; Paula Rodrigues Pires; Fernando Silva Rios; Joao Augusto Peixoto de Oliveira; Ricardo Dos Santos Araujo Costa; Kelly F Cunha; Heraldo Luis Dias Silveira; Suzana Pimentel; Marcio Zaffalon Casati; Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rosing; Alex Nogueira Haas Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-03-16 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Angeliki Polymeri; David Anssari-Moin; Joyce van der Horst; Daniel Wismeijer; Marja L Laine; Bruno G Loos Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 5.977