A conceptual review on reconstructive peri-implantitis therapy: Challenges and opportunities

Comparative evaluation of the effect of impregnated retraction cord versus laser on gingival attachment level and pain perception following retraction for subgingival margins - A prospective, split-mouth, controlled, clinical study

AIM

To evaluate and compare the effect of impregnated retraction cord vs Laser on gingival attachment level and pain perception following retraction for subgingival margins.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

Many methods for achieving and measuring the amount of gingival retraction in fixed prosthodontic work have been advocated. Though the gingival attachment level is crucial in Periodontology, the literature available regarding the effect of these retraction methods on the same is scarce. Hence, this clinical study was designed to compare the pain perception and amount of gingival recession when impregnated cord and laser were used for retraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 40 subjects (age range of 20 to 40 years) with single missing maxillary incisor, the abutments were prepared with subgingival margins, to receive a full coverage metal-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis. The gingiva was retracted on one of the abutments with impregnated retraction cord and on the other with diode laser. Gingival attachment levels were compared at six sites per abutment using superimposition of digital scans, preoperative and four weeks after cementation of final prosthesis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Statistical analysis of the data for gingival recession was done using t-test. Pain perception was analysed with Chi-square test. Pain perception by patients following retraction was compared with VAS scale.

RESULTS

The average values of gingival recession on buccal side were 0.61 mm and 0.38 mm and on the palatal side were 0.58 mm and 0.35 mm for impregnated retraction cord and laser respectively. The P values of <0.01 indicated a highly significant difference between the two groups. Intragroup comparison did not show significant differences between various sites. Pain and discomfort produced by cord method was moderate in comparison with mild/no pain with diode laser and the difference was highly significant.Conclusion: Retraction cord produced more gingival recession than the diode laser, which was statistically highly significant on both buccal and palatal aspects of the teeth. Patients experience with diode laser technique was less painful in comparison with retraction cord method.

A longitudinal analysis of the impact of nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implantitis upon clinical parameters and implant stability quotient values. A 2-3-year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

In this study, the aim was to investigate the medium- to long-term impact of peri-implantitis treatment upon clinical parameters and implant stability quotient values and to ascertain if magnetic resonance frequency analysis can be used as a diagnostic tool to demonstrate postoperative healing following treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of n = 26 patients (n = 86 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited for this prospective cohort study and four different treatment modalities were used. Baseline measurements of a number of clinical parameters as well as implant stability measurements in the form of ISQ were recorded. These measurements were repeated at 6, 12, and 24-36 months following treatment. Analysis of variance was performed for all implants treated as well as separately for each treatment modality. A regression model was also used to determine factors affecting ISQ measurements over time.

RESULTS

Treatment of peri-implantitis resulted in significant improvements of both average PPDs and BOP (p < .0001 and p < .01). ISQ values marginally improved initially for all treatment modalities, but improvement was only maintained for 2-3 years in treatment modalities I (+1.28), III (+1.49), and IV (+2.92). There was a statistically significant negative linear correlation between average PPD and the ISQ values recorded both at baseline (r = -.618, p < 0.0001) and at 2/3 years (r = -.604, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Over the 2-3-year follow-up period, all four treatment modalities led to improved clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters but implant stability posttreatment, as indicated by the fact that the recorded ISQ scores remained stable. As a result, use of MRFA as an adjunct to the traditionally used periodontal and radiographic tools for the evaluation of postoperative implant stability following the treatment of peri-implant disease cannot be recommended.