Comparison of two full-mouth approaches in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a pilot study

Efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis. A systematic review

AIM

To systematically assess the efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis (PM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) were identified through an electronic search of three databases complemented by manual search. Identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies without professional intervention or with only mechanical debridement professionally administered were included. Quality assessment was performed by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs with a follow-up from 3 to 24 months were included. Definition of PM was lacking or heterogeneously reported. Complete resolution of PM was not achieved in any study. One study reported 38% of patients with complete resolution of PM. Surrogate end-point outcomes of PM therapy were often reported. The choice of control interventions showed great variability. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes, a triclosan-containing toothpaste and adjunctive antiseptics remains to be established. High quality of methods and reporting was found in four studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionally- and patient-administered mechanical plaque control alone should be considered the standard of care in the management of PM. Therapy of PM is a prerequisite for the prevention of peri-implantitis.

Antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an adjunct method in peri-implant biofilm control

Great possibilities for oral rehabilitation emerged as a result of scientific consolidation, as well as a large number of dental implant applications. Along with implants appeared diseases such as mucositis and peri-implantitis, requiring management through several strategies applied at different stages. Biofilm accumulation is associated with clinical signs manifest by both tooth and implant inflammation. With this in mind, regular and complete biofilm elimination becomes essential for disease prevention and host protection. Chemical control of biofilms, as an adjuvant to mechanical oral hygiene, is fully justified by its simplicity and efficacy proven by studies based on clinical evidence. The purpose of this review was to present a consensus regarding the importance of antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an auxiliary method in chemical peri-implant biofilm control. The active ingredients of the several available mouthrinses include bis-biguanide, essential oils, phenols, quaternary ammonium compounds, oxygenating compounds, chlorine derivatives, plant extracts, fluorides, antibiotics and antimicrobial agent combinations. It was concluded that there is strong clinical evidence that at least two mouthrinses have scientifically proven efficacy against different oral biofilms, i.e., chlorhexidine digluconate and essential oils; however, 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate presents a number of unwanted side effects and should be prescribed with caution. Chemical agents seem beneficial in controlling peri-implant inflammation, although they require further investigation. We recommend a scientifically proven antiseptic, with significant short and long term efficacy and with no unwanted side effects, for the prevention and/or treatment of peri-implant disease.

Management of peri-implant disease: a current appraisal

While the clinical science of managing peri-implant diseases is progressing, careful monitoring and preventive care of peri-implant tissue health during maintenance is paramount.

BACKGROUND

Implants have become a routine treatment option for missing dentition. The biological complications of restored dental implants and associated supra-structures share similarities with the biofilm infections of natural dentition. Our existing paradigms of periodontal disease treatment can partially be applied to management of peri-implant disease.

APPROACH

A critical analysis of the peri-implant disease literature was conducted, anchored by a search on the MEDLINE database (2005 to present) by way of Ovid Medline(®). Search terms peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant diseases were utilized. Select references within bibliographies of review articles were sought.

CONCLUSION

The dental team must play a critical role in educating patients to control plaque-biofilm associated with peri-implant tissues and associated restorations. Routine assessments at maintenance appointments allow early treatment intervention to prevent escalation of peri-implant disease. Given the infancy of clinical science surrounding peri-implantitis treatment, further, high-quality evidence based studies are expected.

Systematic review of quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods to study efficacy of preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri-implant diseases

AIM

To systematically review the literature and to assess the quality of reporting, outcome measurements and methods in both preventive and therapeutic approaches to peri-implant mucositis (PM) and peri-implantitis (PI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized (RCT) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCT), evaluating preventive or therapeutic interventions in patients with PM or PI, were identified through searching in electronic databases and in relevant journals. Reporting and methods were evaluated through an analysis of the risk of biases and quality score. Sub-analysis was performed in four subgroups: prevention of PM and PI, treatment of PM, and non-surgical and surgical treatment of PI.

RESULTS

Thirty-two trials (29 RCT) were identified as accomplishing inclusion criteria after full-text reading. Seven focused on prevention, and among those dealing with therapy, six were related to PM and 19 related to PI therapy (10 non-surgical and 9 surgical). Analysis found that quality of reporting and methods was generally low and surrogate outcomes were often chosen.

CONCLUSIONS

Current literature on PM and PI prevention and treatment does not allow extracting applicable clinical information. Quality of methods and reporting guidelines should be encouraged. In particular, ad hoc guidelines should be designed for peri-implant diseases.

Topical application of 1% chlorhexidine gel versus 0.2% mouthwash in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. An observational study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the use of two chlorhexidine-based antimicrobial agents as an adjunct to mechanical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with peri-implant mucositis were included in the study and randomized in two groups. In addition to mechanical therapy, group A was treated with chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash, while group B was treated with chlorhexidine 1% gel. Probing depth, plaque index and bleeding index were recorded at each scheduled follow-up visit: ten days, 1 month and 3 months after giving the patients the assigned formulation. Patients had to fill in a questionnaire investigating their satisfaction and ease of use of the product.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients (13 in group A and 10 in group B) attended all the follow-up visits. Chlorhexidine 0.2% mouthwash and chlorhexidine 1% gel were equally useful in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis leading to the reduction in inflammatory parameters. Probing depth decreased over time in both groups. Patients showed preference for gel formulation even if they found it more difficult to use.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive treatment with different chlorhexidine formulations was beneficial to the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Besides, no differences could be found between 0.2% mouthwash and 1% gel.