Effect of a chlorhexidine-containing brush-on gel on peri-implant mucositis

Decision-making on peri-implant mucositis management and treatment approaches

Peri-implant mucositis is characterised by inflammation of soft tissues surrounding a dental implant without associated bone loss beyond initial remodelling. Early detection and timely intervention are critical to prevent its progression to peri-implantitis. This paper focuses on various treatment options for treating peri-implant mucositis. The cornerstone of professional treatment lies in the mechanical disruption and removal of microbial biofilms around the implant. This can be achieved through careful use of manual or powered instruments, such as ultrasonic scalers or air polishing devices. However, there is a need for further research to determine the most effective single approach for treating peri-implant mucositis. Current evidence does not support the combination of mechanical debridement with locally administered antibiotics. Contrarily, evidence strongly supports the removal, cleaning, and modifications of prostheses to improve both self-performance and professional cleanability. The use of adjunctive therapies like photodynamic therapy and diode laser, in conjunction with mechanical instrumentation, is not currently recommended due to the limited strength of available evidence. Preventive measures emphasise the importance of comprehensive oral hygiene care, encompassing professional guidance and at-home practices, to manage biofilms effectively. This encompasses oral hygiene instruction, regular debridement, and maintenance care. Supporting peri-implant therapy is also vital for ongoing implant monitoring, preventing the recurrence of mucositis, and halting its progression to peri-implantitis. This multifaceted approach is key to effectively managing and treating peri-implant mucositis.

The Effectiveness of the Association of Chlorhexidine with Mechanical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis

(1) Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of combining chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: Articles from 2016 to 2021 included in the PubMed and Scopus databases were analyzed, following the PICOS criteria and the randomized controlled study model that used chlorhexidine in various forms in the treatment of peri-mucositis. According to the established criteria, a limited number of studies were selected. These studies had as their criteria of evaluation for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine, plaque indices, bleeding indices and depth probing indices. Chlorhexidine has been used after mechanical debridement as a solution, with different concentrations of 0.06%/0.12%/0.2% alone or in a concentration of 0.03%, in combination with 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride, as well as in the form of a gel with a concentration of 0.2%. (3) Results: The results were assessed to a placebo or other substances, and showed a significant reduction in the indices with a follow-up period ranging from 3 months to 1 year. (4) Conclusions: The association of chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has a role in reducing inflammation, although a complete remission was not obtained in all cases, and the results were not statistically significantly different from the use of other antiseptics.

Adjunctive Use of Active Compounds such as Chlorhexidine in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis for Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone loss. Without proper control of PiM, the reversible inflammation may advance to peri-implantitis (PI). Mechanical debridement (MD) by the implant surface is the most common and conventional nonsurgical approach to treat PiM but with limitations in complete resolution of diseases. For more than a decade, chlorhexidine (CHX) and active compounds has been investigated in the treatment of PiM. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of CHX treatment in combination with MD versus MD alone or MD+placebo in patients with PiM on their oral health problems.

Methods

A search using electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search up to May 2022 were performed independently by 2 reviewers and included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD+CHX versus MD alone or MD+placebo. The assessment of quality for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Disease resolution of PiM (absence of BOP), IPPD reduction, IBOP% reduction, and PI% reduction after treatment as primary outcomes were selected as the primary outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was for dichotomous outcomes using random effect models. This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020221989).

Results

After independent screening, nine eligible studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed OR of disease resolution between test and control groups amounted to 1.41 (95% CI (0.43, 4.65), P = 0.57, I 2 = 65%) not favoring adjunctive CHX treatment over MD alone. Through subgroup analysis, the results indicated that oral irrigation of CHX may have more benefits on the resolution of PiM. Similarly, CHX did not significantly improve IPPD reduction at both short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Only a short-term effect has been observed at IBOP% reduction (WMD = 13.88, 95% CI (10.94, 16.81), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 9%), IPI reduction (WMD = 0.12, 95% CI (0.09, 0.14), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), and FMPPD reduction (WMD = 0.19 mm, 95% CI (0.03, 0.35), P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%) with adjunctive CHX application.

Conclusion

Adjunctive CHX application may have some benefits to improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment by reducing IBOP%, IPI, and FMPPD in short-term. But these benefits disappeared at medium- and long-term follow-up. In order to achieve better disease resolution of PiM, adjunctive CHX irrigation with MD may be suggested and has positive potential. Well-designed large clinical trials are needed in future.

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Clinical Efficacy of Chlorhexidine as an Adjunct to Mechanical Therapy of Peri-Implant Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of chlorhexidine (CHX) as an adjunctive therapy to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Five databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing mechanical debridement combined with CHX to mechanical debridement alone for patients with peri-implant disease were identified. The trial investigators evaluated factors indicating inflammatory levels, including bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Six RCTs with 207 patients were ultimately included in this review. Low- to moderate-quality evidence demonstrated that the adjunctive CHX therapy had no significant effect on BOP reduction within 1 month (mean difference [MD], 0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.06 to 0.25), 3-4 months (MD, 0.06; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.15), and 6-8 months (MD, 0.06; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.14) of follow-up. Significant differences in PD reduction and CAL gain were also not found. Although 1 subgroup analysis revealed a significant result (MD, 009; 95% CI, 0.01-0.18) for the use of CHX solution, this could be interpreted as clinically slight. Based on available evidence, adding CHX to mechanical debridement, compared with mechanical debridement alone, did not significantly enhance the clinical results. Therefore, clinicians should consider the negligible effect of adjunctive CHX.

Current Approaches for the Non-surgical Management of Peri-implant Diseases

Purpose of the Review

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory reactions to bacterial infections affecting osseointegrated dental implants. In recent years, scientific interest on this topic has increased, as demonstrated by the appearance of a large number of protocols for treating peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI). The aim of the present narrative review is to provide an overview of the recent (e.g., 2014–present) published protocols for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Recent Findings

Several adjunctive measures for mechanical debridement have been proposed and investigated to achieve implant surface decontamination and resolution of mucosal inflammation. However, none of the adjunctive measures has been shown to significantly improve peri-implant conditions compared with non-surgical mechanical debridement alone.

Summary

Non-surgical approaches for the treatment of peri-implant diseases have been proved to be reliable in reducing clinical signs of peri-implant inflammation (e.g., BoP), although with limited capability to achieve complete disease resolution. Due to the limited benefits from the use of currently proposed adjunctive methods (e.g., chlorhexidine, lasers, photodynamic therapy, systemic probiotics) their application is not recommended until further investigations prove their clinical utility.

Adjunctive effect of mouthrinse on treatment of peri-implant mucositis using mechanical debridement: A randomized clinical trial

Aim

To study effect of delmopinol hydrochloride (DEL) in comparison with chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) and a placebo (PLA) in addition to non‐surgical mechanical debridement in patients with peri‐implant mucositis.

Materials and methods

Eighty‐nine patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis were randomly assigned to one of three study groups (DEL, CHX and PLA). Professional non‐surgical mechanical debridement was performed at baseline. Mouth rinsing was carried out by the patients twice a day in addition to their regular oral hygiene practices. Assessments of efficacy were performed for the primary outcome ‐ Implant bleeding on probing (IBOP%) and secondary outcomes ‐ modified Bleeding Index (mBI) and modified Plaque Index (mPI) at 1 and 3 months.

Results

At 3 months, there was statistically significant reduction in IBOP% and mBI within the study groups compared to baseline. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the study groups at 3 months follow‐up. Moreover, there was a statistically significant difference according to mPI at 1 month between the chlorhexidine and placebo group (p = .004).

Conclusions

This study confirms that mechanical debridement combined with oral hygiene instruction is effective in treatment of peri‐implant mucositis. The clinical effects between groups were comparable.

Role of Dental Implant Homecare in Mucositis and Peri-implantitis Prevention: A Literature Overview

Background:

Correlation between high plaque index and inflammatory lesions around dental implants has been shown and this highlights the importance of patient plaque control. Until now, knowledge of peri-implant home care practices has been based on periodontal devices.

Objective:

The aim of this overview is to identify the presence of scientific evidence that peri-implant homecare plays a role in mucositis and peri-implantitis prevention.

Methods:

Different databases were used in order to detect publications reflecting the inclusion criteria. The search looked into peri-implant homecare studies published from 1991 to 2019 and the terms used for the identification of keywords were: Dental implants, Brush, Interproximal brushing, Interdental brushing, Power toothbrush, Cleaning, Interdental cleaning, Interspace cleaning, Flossing, Super floss, Mouth rinses, Chlorhexidine. The type of studies included in the selection for this structured review were Randomized Clinical Trials, Controlled Clinical Trials, Systematic Reviews, Reviews, Cohort Studies and Clinical cases.

Results:

Seven studies fulfilled all the inclusion criteria: 3 RCTs, one Consensus report, one cohort study, one systematic review and one review. Other 14 studies that partially met the inclusion criteria were analyzed and classified into 3 different levels of evidence: good evidence for RCTs, fair evidence for case control and cohort studies and poor evidence for expert opinion and case report.

Conclusion:

Not much research has been done regarding homecare implant maintenance. Scientific literature seems to show little evidence regarding these practices therefore most of the current knowledge comes from the periodontal literature. Manual and powered toothbrushes, dental floss and interdental brushes seem to be useful in maintaining peri-implant health. The use of antiseptic rinses or gels does not seem to have any beneficial effects.

It can be concluded that to better understand which are the most effective home care practices to prevent mucositis and peri-implantitis in implant-rehabilitated patients, new specific high evidence studies are needed.