Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and safety of erythritol air-polishing in implant dentistry: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Professional oral hygiene is essential to prevent peri-implant disease. Appropriate instruments should be employed for implant-supported restorations: they should effectively remove deposits without damaging dental implant surface. The aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of erythritol air-polishing in implant-supported rehabilitations, compared to alternative hygienic techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The guidelines reported in the indications of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) were employed for this systematic review. The focused question was: 'what is the effect of erythritol air-polishing on dental implant surfaces regarding its cleansing efficacy and/or safety?' The final online search was conducted on 13 August 2023; MEDLINE-PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Library were employed. Comparative in vitro or in vivo original studies were included.

RESULTS

The initial database search yielded 128 entries; the final selection comprised 15 articles. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS), the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, GRADE method. Ultrasonic scaling with PEEK tips, glycine air-polishing and cold atmospheric plasma were the devices most frequently compared to erythritol powder in the included studies. Erythritol air-polishing appeared to be significantly more effective in reducing biofilm compared to other treatments, without causing any significant damage to the implant surface and peri-implant tissues, promoting a good biological response.

CONCLUSION

Erythritol air-polishing showed promising results for professional oral hygiene in implant-supported restorations. According to this systematic review, it is effective and safe for removing biofilm from titanium dental implants.

In-vitro biofilm removal from TiUnite® implant surface with an air polishing and two different plasma devices

BACKGROUND

We investigated the efficacy of two different cold atmospheric pressure jet plasma devices (CAP09 and CAPmed) and an air polishing device with glycine powder (AP) either applied as monotherapies or combined therapies (AP + CAP09; AP + CAPmed), in microbial biofilm removal from discs with anodised titanium surface.

METHODS

Discs covered with 7-day-old microbial biofilm were treated either with CAP09, CAPmed, AP, AP + CAP09 or AP + CAPmed and compared with negative and positive controls. Biofilm removal was assessed with flourescence and electron microscopy immediately after treatment and after 5 days of reincubation of the treated discs.

RESULTS

Treatment with CAP09 or CAPmed did not lead to an effective biofilm removal, whereas treatment with AP detached the complete biofilm, which however regrew to baseline magnitude after 5 days of reincubation. Both combination therapies (AP + CAP09 and AP + CAPmed) achieved a complete biofilm removal immediately after cleaning. However, biofilm regrew after 5 days on 50% of the discs treated with the combination therapy.

CONCLUSION

AP treatment alone can remove gross biofilm immediately from anodised titanium surfaces. However, it did not impede regrowth after 5 days, because microorganisms were probably hidden in holes and troughs, from which they could regrow, and which were inaccessible to AP. The combination of AP and plasma treatment probably removed or inactivated microorganisms also from these hard to access spots. These results were independent of the choice of plasma device.

BSP Implementation of Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVES

to adapt the supranational European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline for UK healthcare environment, taking into account a broad range of views from stakeholders and patients.

SOURCES

This UK version, based on the supranational EFP guideline [1] published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, was developed using S3-level methodology, combining assessment of formal evidence from 13 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 55 clinical recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases, based on the classification for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions [2].

METHODOLOGY

The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework, following the S3-process, the underlying evidence was updated and a representative guideline group of 111 delegates from 26 stakeholder organisations was assembled into four working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the UK healthcare community including the public.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The S3-level-guidelines combine evaluation of formal evidence, grading of recommendations and synthesis with clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. The international S3-level-guideline was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system, facilitating a consistent, interdisciplinary, evidence-based approach with public involvement for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with network meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Extensive research has been carried out on the various aspects of diagnosing and treating peri-implantitis. However, clinical guidelines for the management of peri-implantitis based on high quality evidence are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to analyze the current evidence on nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis and synthesize clinical guidelines based on high quality evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451056). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The interventions were ranked according to their efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) system. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The GRADE approach determined a moderate to high level of certainty of evidence. Among the nonsurgical interventions, mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth at 3 months and beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, and clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive topical antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics and photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months. Among surgical interventions, open flap debridement with implant surface decontamination and open flap debridement with decontamination and adjunctive photodynamic therapy were significant in improving probing depth at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics or photodynamic therapy results in improved clinical outcomes.

Etiology, pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implantitis: A European perspective

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants. It is characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and progressive loss of supporting bone. Over the last 30 years, peri-implantitis has become a major disease burden in dentistry. An understanding of the diagnosis, etiology and pathogenesis, epidemiology, and treatment of peri-implantitis must be a central component in undergraduate and postgraduate training programs in dentistry. In view of the strong role of European research in periodontology and implant dentistry, the focus of this review was to address peri-implantitis from a European perspective. One component of the work was to summarize new and reliable data on patients with dental implants to underpin the relevance of peri-implantitis from a population perspective. The nature of the peri-implantitis lesion was evaluated through results presented in preclinical models and evaluations of human biopsy material together with an appraisal of the microbiological characteristics. An overview of strategies and outcomes presented in clinical studies on nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is discussed with a particular focus on end points of therapy and recommendations presented in the S3 level Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Air powder waterjet technology using erythritol or glycine powders in periodontal or peri-implant prophylaxis and therapy: A consensus report of an expert meeting

OBJECTIVES

To attain a collective expert opinion on the use of air powder waterjet technology (APWT) with erythritol and glycine powders in the prophylaxis and therapy of periodontal and peri-implant diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the first step, a modified one-round online Delphi survey including 44 five-point Likert scale questions was conducted among a group of 10 expert clinicians and researchers with thorough knowledge and experience in this topic. In the second step, the single questions and the survey results were discussed during a meeting, and consensus statements were formulated, respectively.

RESULTS

An agreement was reached on most items, especially opinions supporting glycine and erythritol powders as favorable with respect to efficiency, safety, and comfort. More scientific evidence is needed to support the improvement in clinical attachment on teeth and implants, especially when APWT with erythritol is used. In addition, APWT needs more long-term evaluation and studies in terms of microbiome/microbiological effects as well as effects on the inflammatory response on natural teeth and implants, also in light of a guided biofilm therapy concept.

CONCLUSIONS

In line with the expert opinions and supported by the evidence, it was concluded that the use of APWT with erythritol and glycine powders in nonsurgical periodontal and peri-implant therapy and prophylaxis is patient compliant and efficient.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Periimplant Mucositis and Periimplantitis: An Overview and Related Controversial Issues

Periimplant mucositis and periimplantitis are common complications of dental implant. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the 2017 World Workshop's new definition, clinical and radiographic presentation, pathogenesis, risk factors, and classification of periimplant diseases. Also, the authors discuss various types of instruments, materials, and techniques commonly used for treatment of nonsurgical and surgical periimplantitis. Lastly, the authors include some controversial topics surrounding this subject.

Effect of Air Polishing on the Treatment of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Peri-implant diseases have become one of the notable biological complications of postrehabilitation with implant-supported restorations. Effective modalities for decontamination of biofilm deposits around implant surfaces are critical for resolution of the inflammation. Air polishing is one of the recommended clinical methods for treating peri-implant diseases. This systematic review assessed clinical evidence on efficacy of using air polishing technology for the management of peri-implant diseases, including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Four electronic databases from January 1990 to December 2022 were searched to identify the relative human randomized clinical trials that applied air polishing for nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Twelve articles were selected. For treating peri-implant mucositis, air polishing showed a comparable effect to ultrasonic scaling in the reduction of bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD). The nonsurgical approach of air polishing in treating peri-implantitis varied in the reduction of BOP, PPD, and clinical attachment level (CAL) in evaluated studies. Air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was comparable to mechanical cleaning, implantoplasty, and the use of Ti-brush, in regards to the significant reduction of BOP, PPD, and CAL, as well as the improvement of the bone level between baseline and follow-ups. The standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval of the studied parameters was estimated using the random effect model; however, statistical differences were not detected between air polishing and comparative modalities in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Within the limitations of this review, the application of air polishing did not result in more favorable outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant diseases compared to other modalities.

Decontamination of biofilm-contaminated implant surfaces: An in vitro evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of two mechanical and two chemical protocols in the decontamination of implant surfaces.

METHODS

In total, 123 commercially available implants were mounted in plastic models mimicking peri-implant circumferential intra-bony defects. A multispecies biofilm was grown on implant surfaces. Mechanical (air-polishing (AP), rotating titanium brush (TiB)) and chemical decontamination (alkaline electrolyzed water, N-acetyl-L-cysteine) protocols were used. Cleaning efficacy in terms of residual biofilm area, chemical surface properties, and bacterial counts were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Surface decontamination protocols including use of an AP device or a rotating TiB were superior in terms of biofilm removal and in reducing atomic% of Carbon on implant surfaces when compared to methods restricted to wiping with gauze. The use of chemical agents as adjuncts to the mechanical cleaning protocols provided no relevant overall benefit over saline. No treatment modality, however, resulted in complete biofilm removal.

CONCLUSION

Air-polishing and rotating TiB were more effective implant surface decontamination protocols than wiping with gauzes. Use of chemical agents did not improve cleaning efficacy.

Surface decontamination of explanted peri-implantitis-affected implants

AIM

The present study aimed at evaluating the effect of air-polishing (AP) and a combination of AP and alkaline electrolysed water (AEW) in surface decontamination of explanted peri-implantitis-affected implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five patients with 34 dental implants scheduled for explantation due to severe peri-implantitis were included. Following implant removal, the apical part of each implant was embedded in acrylic blocks. Implants were randomly allocated to surface decontamination using AP with or without AEW. Four implants were left untreated and used as negative controls. Specimens were analysed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Area of residual bacteria was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

SEM analysis revealed that both treatment protocols were effective in biofilm removal and only small proportions of target areas of the implants showed residual bacterial or mineralized deposits. Although differences between the treatment protocols were small, implant thread loci (top/flank/valley), zones of the implant (apical/middle/coronal), implant surface characteristics and gender influenced the results. In addition, EDS analysis showed that zones influenced the atomic% of carbon and calcium and that implant surface characteristics affected the atomic% of titanium.

CONCLUSIONS

AP, with or without AEW, is an effective method in removing biofilm from peri-implantitis-affected implants.

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Photo/mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination approaches in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive/alternative photo/mechanical and physical implant-surface decontamination approaches compared to standard instrumentation in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of adjunctive or alternative photo/mechanical/physical measures for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment without (PICOS 1) or with (PICOS 2) additional decontamination methods performed in test and control groups with changing inflammation parameters were covered. Changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleeding index, or bleeding on probing [BOP]), suppuration, and probing depth (PD) were considered the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Six articles describing five original RCTs were eligible for analysis. Based on two RCTs, the adjunctive/alternative use of air polishing with glycine or erythritol powder did not improve BOP reduction compared to standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). Based on one RCT, alternative use of titanium brushes resulted in significantly higher BOP reduction compared to either air polishing or standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). During reconstructive therapy and as an adjunct to implantoplasty, use of a titanium brush did not have any benefit on the BOP and mean PD reductions compared to the control group (i.e., implantoplasty + mechanical and chemical implant surface decontamination; one RCT; PICOS 2). Use of the Er:YAG laser resulted in significantly higher PD reduction after 6 months (one RCT), whereas no difference between the test and respective controls could be detected after 1 and 2 years (one RCT). Additionally, the use of the Er:YAG laser was not associated with improved BOP reductions over respective controls (two RCTs; PICOS 2).

CONCLUSIONS

Owing to the limited available data, clinical efficacy of photo/mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis therapy is inconclusive. However, titanium brushes may be beneficial in reducing signs of inflammation.

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis constitutes one of the most frequent late dental implant complications. The disease is initiated by bacterial infection; therefore, anti-infective peri-implantitis treatment strategies are required to arrest the progressive marginal bone loss and maintain the affected implant in function. Although nonsurgical treatment strategies appear to be of limited predictability, treatment outcomes have been frequently improved following surgical interventions.

PURPOSE

The present narrative review describes various surgical peri-implantitis treatment modalities, with respect to their indications, performance, and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present narrative review considered the most relevant studies in the field published in the English language.

RESULTS

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment approaches can be categorized as nonreconstrucive therapy, reconstructive therapy, and combined therapy (ie, reconstructive and resective therapy). In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and achieve reosseointegration.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the disease, the regenerative potential of the defetc and esthetic demands of the patient are the factors determining the surgical peri-implantitis treatment modality.

Reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential benefit of the use of a bone substitute material in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, 138 patients (147 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated surgically, randomized by coin toss to either a control (access flap surgery) or a test group (reconstructive surgery using bone substitute material). Clinical assessments, including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP) as well as soft tissue recession (REC), were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Marginal bone levels (MBL), measured on intra-oral radiographs, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline and 12 months. No blinding to group allocation was performed. The primary outcome at 12 months was a composite measure including (i) implant not lost, (ii) absence of BOP/SOP at all aspects, (iii) PPD ≤5 mm at all aspects and (iv) ≤1 mm recession of mucosal margin on the buccal aspect of the implant. Secondary outcomes included (i) changes of MBL, (ii) changes of PPD, BOP%, and buccal KM, (iii) buccal REC and (iv) patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

During follow-up, four implants (one in the test group, three in the control group) in four patients were removed due to disease progression. At 12 months, a total of 69 implants in the test and 68 implants in the control group were examined. Thus, 16.4% and 13.5% of implants in the test and control group, respectively, met all predefined criteria of the composite outcome. PPD reduction and MBL gain were 3.7 mm and about 1.0 mm in both groups. Reduction in mean BOP% varied between 45% (test) and 50% (control), without significant differences between groups. Buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group (M = 0.7, SD = 0.9 mm) when compared to controls (M = 1.1, SD = 1.5 mm). PROs were favorable in both groups without significant differences. One case of allergic reaction to the antibiotic therapy was recorded. No other adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical therapy of peri-implantitis effectively improved the clinical and radiographic status at 12 months. While the use of a bone substitute material did not improve reductions of PPD and BOP, buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.