The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical efficacy of ultrasonic instrumentation versus the use of an erythritol jet in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
To carry out this study, the investigators considered a treatment protocol for periimplantitis consisting of 2 phases. The first phase corresponds to the non-surgical treatment of periimplantitis, which can be performed using various techniques. In the present study, it will be carried out using manual instrumentation (with ultrasound and curettes) or with an erythritol jet. In both cases, systemic antibiotic therapy with metronidazole will be performed. The results obtained during the follow-ups will allow the evaluation of the effectiveness of the treatment carried out. If this does not prove to be successful, through an evaluation of clinical and radiographic criteria, patients will be advised to undergo a second phase of treatment, in this case a surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, but which will no longer be part of the interventions carried out and documented in this study. Patients for whom the unsatisfactory treatment was considered effective will be allocated to a periimplant support treatment program, which means that they will be advised to carry out maintenance consultations at the FMDUP clinic with a specific and individualized periodicity in order to maintain the health of the periimplant tissues and the remaining oral cavity. The study will be carried out by the students of the Specialization in Periodontology and Oral Implantology 2021-2024 of the Faculty of Dental Medicine of the University of Porto (FMDUP).
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
32
Use of an erythritol jet in the non-surgical treatment of periimplantitis together with systemic metronidazole
Use of manual instrumentation in the non-surgical treatment of periimplantitis together with systemic metronidazole
Faculty of Dentistry at the University of OPorto
Porto, Porto District, Portugal
Change in probing pocket depth
The distance measured from the base of the sulcus or pocket to the free gingival margin at six points per implant (measured in millimetres).
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, 12 months
PROMS
Patient reported outcomes reported on a visual analog scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (maximum pain).
Time frame: 0 months
Change in alveolar bone level
Radiographically measured alveolar bone level from the alveolar crest to the implant's neck, mesially and distally (measured in millimetres).
Time frame: 0,12 months
Change in gingival recession
Gingival recession measured at six points per implant with a periodontal probe, from the cementum-enamel junction to the bottom of the probable pocket (measured in millimetres).
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, 12 months
Bleeding on probing
Bleeding on probing (in percentage) assessed 30 seconds after probing, through a dichotomous scoring system used at six sites per implant using one (1) and zero (0) for presence or absence, respectively.
Time frame: 0, 3, 6, 12 months
Implant survival rate
Percentage of implants that survived after 1 year follow-up (implants that remain in the patient's mouth after 1 year).
Time frame: 0, 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.