Clinical Response to 2 Different Therapeutic Regimens to Treat Peri-Implant Mucositis
- Autores: Roberto Portas Moureb, Dr. Gissela B. Anderson, Raúl Caffesse, Sena Narendran, Pedro M. Trejo
- Localización: Journal of periodontology, ISSN 0022-3492, Vol. 73, Nº. 10, 2002, págs. 1118-1125
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Background: Maintenance of implants is imperative, since implants, like teeth, are susceptible to bacterial plaque accumulation and calculus formation, and thus at risk of developing peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.
Methods: This study determined the clinical effects of chlorhexidine treatment on peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months as determined by the modified plaque index, the modified sulcus bleeding index, clinical attachment level, and probing depth. Through DNA probes, the effect of chlorhexidine on the microbial flora of mucositic lesions was also evaluated. The population consisted of 16 adult male and female subjects (ages 34 to 76). After the baseline examination, the subjects received a dental prophylaxis and were randomly assigned to the test or control group. Subjects in the test group received antiseptic therapy (Treatment 1), which included mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions supplemented by the local irrigation with chlorhexidine 0.12%, using a plastic syringe, and the topical application of a 0.12% chlorhexidine gel. The subjects in the control group received only mechanical cleansing and oral hygiene instructions (Treatment 2).
Results: Both modalities of treatment were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis and probing depths, and improving attachment levels. The trends suggested that mechanical cleansing alone may be sufficient to treat and reduce peri-implant mucositis at 1 and 3 months after treatment. The addition of chlorhexidine to mechanical debridement did not enhance the results as compared to mechanical debridement alone.
Conclusions: Mechanical debridement as well as mechanical debridement supplemented with chlorhexidine can be beneficial to patients with peri-implant mucositis. Both treatments resulted in a reduction of plaque, inflammation, and probing depth, as well as a gain in clinical attachment level, and are effective in suppressing or eradicating the pathogenic bacteria often associated with peri-implant inflammation.
