File Download
 
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
 
Supplementary

Article: Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomised controlled clinical trial
  • Basic View
  • Metadata View
  • XML View
TitleAnti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomised controlled clinical trial
 
AuthorsHeitzMayfield, LJA2
Salvi, GE5
Botticelli, D4
Mombelli, A3
Faddy, M6
Lang, NP1
 
KeywordsAnti-infective treatment
Chlorhexidine
Non-surgical debridement
Oral hygiene
Peri-implant mucositis
RCT
 
Issue Date2011
 
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
CitationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 3, p. 237-241 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
 
AbstractAim: To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Materials and methods: Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months. Results: At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment. Conclusions: Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
ISSN0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
 
ISI Accession Number IDWOS:000286891100001
Funding AgencyGrant Number
International Team of Implantology (ITI)341-2004
Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland
Funding Information:

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Regula Hirschi, Marianne Weibel and Prof. G. Rutger Persson from the Oral Microbiology Laboratory, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland. This study was supported by an research grant of the International Team of Implantology (ITI) (341-2004) and the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, CH-3855 Brienz, Switzerland.

 
ReferencesReferences in Scopus
 
DC FieldValue
dc.contributor.authorHeitzMayfield, LJA
 
dc.contributor.authorSalvi, GE
 
dc.contributor.authorBotticelli, D
 
dc.contributor.authorMombelli, A
 
dc.contributor.authorFaddy, M
 
dc.contributor.authorLang, NP
 
dc.date.accessioned2011-06-17T09:18:01Z
 
dc.date.available2011-06-17T09:18:01Z
 
dc.date.issued2011
 
dc.description.abstractAim: To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Materials and methods: Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months. Results: At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment. Conclusions: Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
 
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext
 
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 3, p. 237-241 [How to Cite?]
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
 
dc.identifier.citeulike8799312
 
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x
 
dc.identifier.epage241
 
dc.identifier.hkuros185679
 
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000286891100001
Funding AgencyGrant Number
International Team of Implantology (ITI)341-2004
Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, Brienz, Switzerland
Funding Information:

The authors acknowledge the assistance of Regula Hirschi, Marianne Weibel and Prof. G. Rutger Persson from the Oral Microbiology Laboratory, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland. This study was supported by an research grant of the International Team of Implantology (ITI) (341-2004) and the Clinical Research Foundation (CRF) for the Promotion of Oral Health, CH-3855 Brienz, Switzerland.

 
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
2013 Impact Factor: 3.123
 
dc.identifier.issue3
 
dc.identifier.openurl
 
dc.identifier.pmid21251076
 
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-79551549639
 
dc.identifier.spage237
 
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/134335
 
dc.identifier.volume22
 
dc.languageeng
 
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
 
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
 
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research
 
dc.relation.referencesReferences in Scopus
 
dc.rightsThe definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com
 
dc.subjectAnti-infective treatment
 
dc.subjectChlorhexidine
 
dc.subjectNon-surgical debridement
 
dc.subjectOral hygiene
 
dc.subjectPeri-implant mucositis
 
dc.subjectRCT
 
dc.titleAnti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomised controlled clinical trial
 
dc.typeArticle
 
<?xml encoding="utf-8" version="1.0"?>
<item><contributor.author>HeitzMayfield, LJA</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Salvi, GE</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Botticelli, D</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Mombelli, A</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Faddy, M</contributor.author>
<contributor.author>Lang, NP</contributor.author>
<date.accessioned>2011-06-17T09:18:01Z</date.accessioned>
<date.available>2011-06-17T09:18:01Z</date.available>
<date.issued>2011</date.issued>
<identifier.citation>Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2011, v. 22 n. 3, p. 237-241</identifier.citation>
<identifier.issn>0905-7161</identifier.issn>
<identifier.uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10722/134335</identifier.uri>
<description.abstract>Aim: To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Materials and methods: Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months. Results: At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment. Conclusions: Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins. &#169; 2011 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S.</description.abstract>
<language>eng</language>
<publisher>Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal&apos;s web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR</publisher>
<relation.ispartof>Clinical Oral Implants Research</relation.ispartof>
<rights>The definitive version is available at www3.interscience.wiley.com</rights>
<subject>Anti-infective treatment</subject>
<subject>Chlorhexidine</subject>
<subject>Non-surgical debridement</subject>
<subject>Oral hygiene</subject>
<subject>Peri-implant mucositis</subject>
<subject>RCT</subject>
<title>Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomised controlled clinical trial</title>
<type>Article</type>
<identifier.openurl>http://library.hku.hk:4550/resserv?sid=HKU:IR&amp;issn=0905-7161&amp;volume=22&amp;issue=3&amp;spage=237&amp;epage=241&amp;date=2011&amp;atitle=Anti-infective+treatment+of+peri-implant+mucositis:+a+randomised+controlled+clinical+trial</identifier.openurl>
<description.nature>link_to_subscribed_fulltext</description.nature>
<identifier.doi>10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02078.x</identifier.doi>
<identifier.pmid>21251076</identifier.pmid>
<identifier.scopus>eid_2-s2.0-79551549639</identifier.scopus>
<identifier.hkuros>185679</identifier.hkuros>
<relation.references>http://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-79551549639&amp;selection=ref&amp;src=s&amp;origin=recordpage</relation.references>
<identifier.volume>22</identifier.volume>
<identifier.issue>3</identifier.issue>
<identifier.spage>237</identifier.spage>
<identifier.epage>241</identifier.epage>
<identifier.isi>WOS:000286891100001</identifier.isi>
<publisher.place>United States</publisher.place>
<identifier.citeulike>8799312</identifier.citeulike>
</item>
Author Affiliations
  1. The University of Hong Kong
  2. University of Western Australia
  3. Université de Genève
  4. Ariminum Odontologica
  5. Universität Bern
  6. Queensland University of Technology