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

The Effect of Patient-associated Factors on Long-term Survival of Dental Implants

Dental implant therapy has developed over the past half century to have documented successful outcomes in most patients who receive treatment. The long-term survival of dental implants depends upon a variety of factors including patient, surgeon, restorative dentist, and materials-related factors. The impact of patient-associated factors may impact significantly on the success of dental implants including diabetes mellitus, medications, smoking, parafunctional habits, oral hygiene, head and neck radiation, and the use of bisphosphonates, antiangiogenic, and antiresorptive medications.

A Single Dose of Piperacillin Plus Tazobactam Gel as an Adjunct to Professional Mechanical Plaque Removal (PMPR) in Patients with Peri-Implant Mucositis: A 6-Month Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial aimed to evaluate the clinical and microbiological efficacy of professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) with or without adjunctive application of piperacillin plus tazobactam gel in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PiM) for up to 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 31 patients with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing (BoP) > 1 at at least one site at baseline, absence of peri-implant bone loss compared with a previous radiograph). After randomized assignment to test and control groups, patients received full-mouth supragingival scaling with or without piperacillin plus tazobactam gel. Clinical examination was performed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months, and a microbiological examination was performed at baseline and after 3 months.

RESULTS

After six months, both treatment modalities resulted in significant reductions and improvements in clinical parameters at the implant sites. Neither study group achieved a complete resolution of PiM (i.e., BoP ≤ 1 per implant). The number of implants with BoP decreased statistically significantly between subsequent time points (p < 0.001) in both the test and the control group. Significant BoP differences (p = 0.039) were observed between groups at 6 months (difference to baseline) following therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present study, the single use of a slow-release, locally applied antibiotic combination of piperacillin and tazobactam gel, adjunctive to PMPR, showed an improvement in clinical variable of implants diagnosed with PiM. The adjunctive treatment resulted in higher BoP reduction when compared to the control, but no significant differences were observed regarding the changes in other clinical and microbiological parameters.

The Efficacy of Ten Different Adjunctive Measures in Patients with Nonsurgically Treated Peri-Implant Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of 10 adjunctive measures on non-surgical therapy outcomes for peri-implant disease. Methods: We formulated the study question and keywords following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Randomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Two researchers assessed the quality of included literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data analysis and ranking were performed using Stata 15.0 software. Results: This study, involving 51 pieces of literature and 2660 samples, conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which revealed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) significantly reduced probing pocket depth values in patients with peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 96.3%) and peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 96.7%). In addition, it showed an improvement in bleeding on probing (BOP) values for peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 91.6%). Furthermore, diode lasers improved BOP values for peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 76.5%). Conclusions: According to the NMA results and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), PDT and diode laser outperform other adjuncts in peri-implant disease.

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.

Adjuvant use of multispecies probiotic in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

This randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the effects of multispecies probiotic containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001™, Lactobacillus paracasei Lpc-37®, and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis HN019™ as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) on changes in bleeding on probing (BOP) in edentulous patients with peri-implant mucositis (PiM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to test (probiotic) or control (placebo) groups. All sites with PiM received MD and topical gel application (probiotic or placebo) at baseline and 12 weeks. After initial MD, patients consumed probiotic or placebo capsules twice a day for 12 weeks. Clinical (modified sulcus bleeding index [mSBI]; modified plaque index [mPI]; probing depth [PD]; and BOP) and immunological parameters were collected at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks. Data were statistically analysed (p < .05).

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with PiM were recruited. The test group presented higher prevalence (p < .05) of cases of restored peri-implant health at 24 weeks than did the control group (72.2% and 33.3%, respectively). No significant difference was observed between test (n = 18) and control (n = 18) groups for mPI and PD. mSBI %-score 0 was higher in the test group than in the control group at 24 weeks (p < .05). When compared with baseline, both groups presented reduced BOP at 12 and 24 weeks (p < .05). BOP was lower in the test group than in the control group at 12 (mean difference = -14.54%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -28.87 to 0.22; p = .0163) and 24 (mean difference = -12.56%; 95% CI = -26.51 to 1.37; p = .0090) weeks. At 24 weeks, only the test group presented lower levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α than those at baseline (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The multispecies probiotic (administered locally and systemically) containing L. rhamnosus HN001™, L. paracasei Lpc-37®, and B. lactis HN019™ as an adjunct to repeated MD promotes additional clinical and immunological benefits in the treatment of PiM in edentulous patients (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04187222).

Impact of Three Nonsurgical, Full-Mouth Periodontal Treatments on Total Bacterial Load and Selected Pathobionts

For the treatment of periodontitis stage III/IV, a quadrant/week-wise debridement (Q-SRP) was compared with three full-mouth approaches: full-mouth scaling (FMS, accelerated Q-SRP within 24 h), full-mouth scaling with chlorhexidine-based disinfection (FMD), and FMD with adjuvant erythritol air polishing (FMDAP). The objective of this prospective, randomized study (a substudy of ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03509233) was to compare the clinical and microbiological effects of the treatments. In total, 105 patients were randomized to one of the four aforementioned treatment groups, with n = 25, 28, 27, and 25 patients allocated to each group, respectively. At baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment, the clinical parameters, including the pocket probing depths, clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing, were recorded, and the prevalence of the total bacteria and four periodontal pathobionts (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Tannerella forsythia) was determined using real-time quantitative PCR. Concerning the clinical outcomes, all the treatment modalities were effective, but the full-mouth approaches, especially FMDAP, were slightly superior to Q-SRP. Using the FMD approach, the reduction in the bacterial load and the number of pathobionts was significantly greater than for FMS, followed by Q-SRP. FMDAP was the least effective protocol for microbial reduction. However, after a temporary increase 3 months after therapy using FMDAP, a significant decrease in the key pathogen, P. gingivalis, was observed. These findings were not consistent with the clinical results from the FMDAP group. In conclusion, the dynamics of bacterial colonization do not necessarily correlate with clinical outcomes after full-mouth treatments for periodontitis stage III/IV.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.

Results

Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x.

Peri-Implant Diseases

Osseointegrated dental implants have become an increasingly popular modality of treatment for the replacement of absent or lost teeth because of its high rates of long-term survival when used to support various types of dental prostheses. However, complications and implant failure can still occur and are considered by many clinicians as a major obstacle for implant treatment. Biological complications mainly refer to inflammatory conditions of the soft tissues and bone surrounding implants and their restorative components, which are induced by the accumulation of bacterial biofilm. Two clinical varieties may be distinguished: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible, plaque-induced inflammatory lesion confined to the peri-implant soft tissue unit, whereas peri-implantitis is an extension of peri-implant mucositis to involve the bone supporting the implant. Diagnosing and managing these biological complications is of utmost importance for the implant surgeon and dental practitioner. This review encompasses the etiology, diagnostic aspects, prevention, and management of biological complications.

Local/Topical Antibiotics for Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified (n = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.

The microbiome of dental and peri-implant subgingival plaque during peri-implant mucositis therapy: A randomized clinical trial

Aim

To assess the microbial effects of mechanical debridement in conjunction with a mouthrinse on sites with peri‐implant mucositis and gingivitis.

Materials and methods

Eighty‐nine patients with peri‐implant mucositis were included in a double‐blinded, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial with mechanical debridement and 1‐month use of either delmopinol, chlorhexidine (CHX), or a placebo mouthrinse. Submucosal and subgingival plaque samples of implants and teeth were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months, processed for 16S V4 rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and analysed bioinformatically.

Results

The sites with peri‐implant mucositis presented with a less diverse and less anaerobic microbiome. Exposure to delmopinol or CHX, but not to the placebo mouthrinse resulted in microbial changes after 1 month. The healthy sites around the teeth harboured a more diverse and more anaerobe‐rich microbiome than the healthy sites around the implants.

Conclusions

Peri‐implant sites with mucositis harbour ecologically less complex and less anaerobic biofilms with lower biomass than patient‐matched dental sites with gingivitis while eliciting an equal inflammatory response. Adjunctive antimicrobial therapy in addition to mechanical debridement does affect both dental and peri‐implant biofilm composition in the short term, resulting in a less dysbiotic subgingival biofilm.

Short-term efficacy of a gel containing propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E on peri-implant mucositis: A double-blind, randomized, clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of a gel containing propolis extract, nanovitamin C and nanovitamin E as adjuvant to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM).

BACKGROUND

Propolis has anti-inflammatory and antibacterial effect that may improve peri-implant health.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind study was performed on patients with at least one implant with PM. Participants received a professional prophylaxis and were instructed to use either test or a control gel as toothpaste three times/day for 1 month. Clinical and microbiological parameters were evaluated. PM resolution was considered in absence of bleeding on probing (BOP). Data were analysed with Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients participated (23 in each group). After treatment, 26.1% of test patients showed complete PM resolution versus 0% in control group (p = .02). Significant reductions were observed in plaque index (p = .03), BOP (p = .04) and probing depths (p = .027) in test compared with control group. The reduction in Tannerella forsythia was statistically greater in test than in control group at 1-month follow-up (p = .02). Porphyromonas gingivalis was statistically reduced in test group from baseline to 1-month follow-up (p = .05).

CONCLUSION

Test gel clinically improved PM and showed certain antimicrobial effect after 1 month in comparison with control group. Further long-term clinical trials are required to confirm these results.

Dentists' preferences in implant maintenance and hygiene instruction

BACKGROUND

This study investigated the preferences of dentists in Australia in providing professional implant maintenance and implant-specific oral hygiene instructions (OHI).

METHODS

General dentists were surveyed online about their preferences in peri-implant diagnostics, maintenance provision, armamentarium used, and implant OHI techniques and frequency.

RESULTS

Most of the 303 respondents (96%) provided maintenance services; 87.6% reviewed implants regularly while 10.7% only performed diagnostics after detecting clinical signs/symptoms. Supragingival prosthesis cleaning was performed by 77.9% of respondents, 35.0% performed subgingival debridement, 41.9% treated peri-implant mucositis and 18.2% treated peri-implantitis. About 15% did not treat nor refer peri-implant disease, including significantly more non-implant providers and dentists without implant training. Maintenance armamentarium commonly included floss (76.3%), prophylaxis (73.9%), plastic curettes (43.3%) and stainless-steel ultrasonics (38.0%). Brushing (86.5%), flossing (73.9%) and interdental brush use (68.3%) were most commonly recommended. Implant OHI was repeated routinely by 57.4% of dentists who provided it. Dentists with greater implant training and experience were more likely to perform reviews and complex maintenance procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant diagnostics performed, treatments provided and armamentarium varied among dentists. Implant providers and those with higher levels of training had more preventative approaches to implant OHI. Possible shortcomings in disease management and OHI reinforcement were identified.

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.

Efficacy of Probiotics as Adjunctive Therapy to Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is an inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding the dental implant and is the precursor of the destructive inflammatory peri-implantitis. PiM is usually reversible, but difficult to eradicate. Mechanical debridement (MD) is the conventional procedure to treat PiM although not enough to reach a complete resolution. Recently, probiotics have been considered in the treatment of peri-implant disease. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of the probiotic therapy combined with MD compared with MD alone or MD + placebo in patients with PiM.

Methods: A search using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search were performed up to November 2019 by two reviewers independently of each other. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD + probiotic vs. MD were included. The quality assessment for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Probing depth reduction was selected as the primary outcome. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, using random effect models. This review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020213625).

Results: Five eligible publications were included in this systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. As regards the implant, the WMD in the probing depth reduction between the test and control group was −0.12 mm [95% CI (−0.38, 0.14), p = 0.38], meaning that the adjunctive probiotic therapy was not improving PiM compared with MD alone or MD + placebo. The meta-analysis also showed no statistically significant results in the secondary outcomes (reduction of full mouth plaque index and full mouth bleeding on probing, absence of bleeding on probing at implant level, and changes in microorganism load and species).

Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the additional use of probiotics did not improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment regarding clinical and microbial outcomes, at least in a short-term.

Does chlorhexidine improve outcomes in non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis?: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With greater number of implants being placed in clinical practice, incidence of peri-implant diseases are on the rise. It is not known whether chlorhexidine (CHX) improves outcomes in the management of peri-implant diseases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of CHX in improving outcomes with non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases up to 1st August 2019 was carried out to search for studies evaluating the efficacy of CHX for non-surgical management of peri-implant diseases.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included. Four studies evaluated the role of CHX in peri-implant mucositis and three in peri-implantitis. Oral prophylaxis with mechanical cleansing of implant surface prior to CHX use was carried out in all seven studies. Meta-analysis indicated that use of CHX did not improve probing depths in peri-implant mucositis (SMD= 0.11; 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.38; p=0.42, I2= 0%). Similarly, CHX did not significantly reduce probing depths in patients with peri-implantitis (MD= 1.57; 95% CI: -0.88 to 4.0; p=0.21, I2= 98%). Results on the efficacy of CHX in reducing BOP in peri-implantitis are conflicting.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our study indicate that adjunctive therapy with CHX may not improve outcomes with non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis. Conclusions with regards to its role in non-surgical management of peri-implantitis cannot be drawn. There is a need for more homogenous RCTs with large sample size to define the role of CHX in non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Effects of different decontaminating solutions used for the treatment of peri-implantitis on the growth of Porphyromonas gingivalis-an in vitro study

Implants have been considered the treatment of choice to replace missing teeth, unfortunately, peri-implant disease is still an unresolved issue. Contaminated implants may be decontaminated by physical debridement and chemical disinfectants; however, there is a lack of consensus regarding the ideal techniques/agents to be used for the decontamination. The objective of our study was to compare the decontaminating efficacy of different chemical agents on a titanium surface contaminated with Porphyromonas gingivalis, a typical representative of the bacterial flora associated with peri-implantitis. Commercially pure Ti grade 4 discs with a polished surface were treated with a mouthwash containing chlorhexidine digluconate (0.1%), povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) solution (10%) or citric acid monohydrate (40%). Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cellular growth and survival were assessed by a 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Significant differences in the quantity of P. gingivalis could be observed after 6 days of incubation. A numerical, but not statistically significant (P = 0.066) decrease in the amount of living bacteria was observed in the group treated with the PVP-iodine solution as compared to the control group. The chlorhexidine (CHX)-treated group presented with significantly higher cell counts, as compared to the PVP-iodine-treated group (P = 0.032), while this was not observed compared to the control group and citric acid-treated group. Our results have also been verified by SEM measurements. Our results suggest that for P. gingivalis contamination on a titanium surface in vitro, PVP-iodine is a superior decontaminant, compared to citric acid and chlorhexidine-digulconate solution.

Dental implant maintenance teaching in Australia-A survey of education providers

INTRODUCTION

Implant treatments and peri-implant maintenance continue apace, while the evidence for implant maintenance and home hygiene continues to be developed. Information sources for dental practitioners and patients in peri-implant health maintenance and disease management are generally not known. This study investigated the implant maintenance topics taught, the discipline backgrounds of convenors and presenters and information delivery methods within implant dentistry teaching in Australia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online survey was distributed to 56 convenors of implant dentistry and maintenance education programmes in Australia, garnering responses from 24 individuals which outlined 43 different education programmes.

RESULTS

Lectures were the main delivery method for implant maintenance information across the different course types. Peri-implant diagnostics were generally taught according to current literature recommendations, but coverage varied in topics where the evidence is yet to be established (eg home hygiene, professional maintenance and implant review). Some educators reported awareness of limitations in their programmes.

CONCLUSION

Implant dentistry education programmes in Australia vary widely in teaching implant maintenance, coverage of which should be current and evidence-based at all education levels. The structure of implant dentistry teaching at the continuing professional development level requires further development.

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.

Clinical effects of the adjunctive use of a 0.03% chlorhexidine and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse in the management of peri-implant diseases: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of a 0.03% chlorhexidine and 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse, as an adjunct to professionally and patient-administered mechanical plaque removal, in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PiM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients displaying PiM in, at least, one implant were included in this randomized, double-blinded, clinical trial. Subjects received professional prophylaxis (baseline and 6 months) and were instructed to regular oral hygiene practices and to rinse, twice daily, with the test or placebo mouth rinses, during one year. Clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Disease resolution was defined as absence of bleeding on probing (BOP). Data were analysed by repeated measures ANOVA, Student's t and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were included and 46 attended the final visit (22 in control and 24 in test group). In the test group, there was a 24.49% greater reduction in BOP at the buccal sites (95% confidence interval [3.65-45.34%]; p = 0.002) than in controls. About 58.3% of test implants and 50% controls showed healthy peri-implant tissues at final visit (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the test mouth rinse demonstrated some adjunctive benefits in the treatment of PiM. Complete disease resolution could not be achieved in every case.

Maintenance of Implant Patients: A Narrative Review

PURPOSE

Patient-administered and professionally administered periimplant maintenance have been recommended to ensure long-term periimplant tissue health. In this narrative review, the effectiveness of patient and professionally administered interventions and the current level of evidence that periimplant maintenance therapy is effective in preventing the occurrence of periimplant disease were examined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, for evidence-based articles in support of the above topics.

RESULTS

Twenty-six clinical trials were included and stratified into categories based on topics.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were reached: (a) mechanical plaque removal is the foundation of successful periimplant therapy; (b) patient- and professionally administered plaque control has been shown to reduce periimplant inflammation, although complete resolution of inflammation is not always evident; (c) the use of adjunctive chemical agents in maintaining periimplant health still remains to be determined; and (d) regular periimplant maintenance plays a significant role in maintaining periimplant soft and hard tissue health.

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

Most of the literature evaluating dental implants focuses on implant survival, which is a limited proxy for the successful rehabilitation of patients with missing teeth. Success should include not only survival but also lack of mechanical, biological, and esthetics problems. A comprehensive review of local and systemic risk factors prior to implant placement will allow the tailoring of treatment planning and maintenance protocols to the patient's profile in order to achieve longitudinal success of the therapy. This review discusses the role of controlling different risk factors and prevention/treatment of peri-implant mucositis in order to avoid peri-implantitis. Although the literature addressing the topic is still scarce, the existing evidence shows that performing optimal plaque control and regular visits to the dentist seem to be adequate to prevent peri-implant lesions. Due to impossibility of defining a probing depth associate with peri-implant health, radiographic evaluations may be considered in the daily practice. So far, there is a strong evidence linking a past history of periodontal disease to peri-implant lesions, but this is not so evident for other factors including smoking and diabetes. The prevention of biological complications starts even before implant placement and include a broader analysis of the patient risk profile and tailoring the rehabilitation and maintenance protocols accordingly. It should be highlighted that the installation of implants does not modify the patient profile, since it does not modify genetics, microbiology or behavioral habits of any individual.

Is Peri-Implantitis Curable?

Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are clinically associated with inflammation of soft tissue around implants; however, peri-implantitis is associated with radiographic bone loss. Recently a new classification scheme-peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant soft-tissue and hard-tissue deficiencies-was introduced. Although various clinical interventions to treat peri-implant diseases have been suggested, early diagnosis and treatment is the key to successful outcomes. Clinicians can select nonsurgical or surgical techniques according to the clinical parameters present, although surgical intervention seems to be more effective in treating peri-implantitis. The best approach to treat peri-implantitis remains controversial.

A Topical Desiccant Agent in Association with Manual Debridement in the Initial Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Clinical and Microbiological Pilot Study

In patients presenting mucositis, effective sub-gingival debridement is crucial to prevent peri-implantitis. The aim of this randomized study was to assess the three-month (T1) effects of a locally delivered liquid desiccant agent with molecular hygroscopic properties, in association with manual debridement, at sites with peri-implant mucositis. Twenty-three patients presenting at least one implant with no radiographically detectable bone loss, a pocket probing depth (PPD) ≥ 4 mm, and bleeding on probing (BOP), were included. At baseline (T0), patients were randomly assigned to receive the aforementioned desiccant agent before debridement (Test-Group), or a Chlorhexidine 1% disinfectant gel after debridement (Control-Group). Treatments were repeated after seven and 14 days. Peri-implant soft tissue assessment [PPD, BOP, Modified Bleeding Index (mBI), Visible Plaque Index (VPI), and Modified Plaque Index (mPLI)] and microbial sampling were performed at T0 and T1. At T1 the Test-Group presented significantly greater reductions for BOP, mBI, VPI, and mPLI. Concerning the deepest sites of the treated implants, both groups showed statistically significant reductions for BOP and mBI between T0 and T1. Furthermore, the Test-Group exhibited a significant decrease in anaerobic bacteria. Despite these valid outcomes, a complete resolution of the inflammatory conditions was not achieved by any of the groups.

Hydrophobicity of graphene as a driving force for inhibiting biofilm formation of pathogenic bacteria and fungi

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the surface and wettability characteristics and the microbial biofilm interaction of graphene coating on titanium.

METHODS

Graphene was deposited on titanium (Control) via a liquid-free technique. The transfer was performed once (TiGS), repeated two (TiGD) and five times (TiGV) and characterized by AFM (n=10), Raman spectroscopy (n=10), contact angle and SFE (n=5). Biofilm formation (n=3) to Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans was evaluated after 24h by CV assay, CFU, XTT and confocal microscopy. Statistics were performed by one-way Anova, Tukey's tests and Pearson's correlation analysis at a pre-set significance level of 5 %.

RESULTS

Raman mappings revealed coverage yield of 82 % for TiGS and ≥99 % for TiGD and TiGV. Both TiGD and TiGV presented FWHM>44cm^-1 and I_D/I_G ratio<0.12, indicating multiple graphene layers and occlusion of defects. The contact angle was significantly higher for TiGD and TiGV (110° and 117°) comparing to the Control (70°). The SFE was lower for TiGD (13.8mN/m) and TiGV (12.1mN/m) comparing to Control (38.3mN/m). TiGD was selected for biofilm assays and exhibited significant reduction in biofilm formation for all microorganisms compared to Control. There were statistical correlations between the high contact angle and low SFE of TiGD and decreased biofilm formation.

SIGNIFICANCE

TiGD presented high quality and coverage and decreased biofilm formation for all species. The increased hydrophobicity of graphene films was correlated with the decreased biofilm formation for various species.

Comparison Of Full-Mouth Scaling and Quadrant-Wise Scaling in the Treatment of Adult Chronic Periodontitis

Abstract In the search for the ideal treatment of periodontal disease various non-surgical techniques should be considered. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of full-mouth scaling (FMS) by clinical and microbiological parameters. 670 individuals were evaluated with 230 subjects meeting the selection criteria and were divided into two groups; 115 subjects treated with FMS and 115 treated with weekly sessions of scaling and root planning (SRP). The patient population had a mean age of 51.67 years, with moderate chronic periodontitis. Subjects were evaluated prior to treatment (T1) and 90 days after execution of therapy (T2), with regards to: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and microbial detection for the presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.g.) and Prevotella intermedia (P.i.) by culture method and confirmed by biochemical tests. Subjects treated in the FMS group also rinsed with 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash for seven days following treatment. The results were analyzed using statistical Student’s t-test and chi-square test. No statistically significant differences were observed for PD and CAL between T1 and T2 in both groups. For GI and PI significant difference was observed between the groups. For the evaluated microbial parameters was observed reduction of P.g. and P.i., but only for P.g. with a significant reduction in both groups. The full mouth scaling technique with the methodology used in this study provided improved clinical conditions and reduction of P.g. in subjects with moderate periodontitis, optimizing the time spent in the therapeutic execution.

Combination of ultrasonic decontamination, soft tissue curettage, and submucosal air polishing with povidone-iodine application for non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 12 Month clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of a concept for non-surgical peri-implantitis combining stepwise mechanical debridement measures with adjuvant povidone-iodine application with and without systemic antibiotics.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with chronic periodontitis and a total of 164 screw-typed implants with peri-implantitis were included. Peri-implantitis was defined as radiographic bone loss of > 2 mm, probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm with bleeding on probing (BOP). Stepwise treatment of implants was performed with ultrasonic debridement, soft tissue curettage (STC), glycine powder air polishing (GPAP), and a repeated submucosal application of povidone-iodine. Teeth with PD > 4 mm were treated simultaneously according to the same concept except STC. In cases with severe periodontitis (n = 24), amoxicillin and metronidazole (AM) were prescribed for 7 days.

RESULTS

After 12 months, implants treated without AM showed significant reductions (P < 0.05) of mean PD (1.4 ± 0.7 mm), clinical attachment level (CAL) (1.3 ± 0.8 mm), and BOP (33.4% ± 17.2%). In deep pockets (PD > 6 mm) changes of mean PD (2.3 ± 1.3 mm), CAL (2.0 ± 1.6 mm), and BOP (44.0% ± 41.7%) were more pronounced. Intake of AM did not significantly influence the changes in these parameters. However, the reduction of implant sites with PD > 4 mm and BOP was significantly higher in patients with AM than in those without AM (31.8% ± 12.6% versus 20.8% ± 14.7%; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ultrasonic debridement, STC, and GPAP with adjuvant povidone-iodine led to significant clinical improvements at implants. Systemic antibiotics had limited effects on the reduction of persisting implant sites with treatment need.

Implant maintenance for the prevention of biological complications: Are you ready for the next challenge?

With increasing knowledge of wound biology and material sciences, the provision of dental implants as a treatment modality has become increasingly predictable and more commonly used to replace missing teeth. However, without appropriate follow up, peri-implant diseases could develop and affect the long-term success of implants. Currently, there is not enough focus on the prevention of peri-implant diseases, as compared to the definition of the disease, its prevalence, and treatment. In the present study, we aim to summarize various factors influencing the successful maintenance of dental implants and highlight current gaps in knowledge. Factors influencing the successful maintenance of dental implants can be divided into three categories: implant-, dentist-, and patient-related factors. Patients with dental implants are often more dentally aware, and this offers an advantage. Compared to gingiva, peri-implant mucosa responds at a different pace to the bacterial challenge. Dental practitioners should be aware of how treatment protocols affect long-term success, and be vigilant in detecting peri-implant diseases at an early stage. Compared to periodontal maintenance, less longitudinal studies on implant maintenance are available, and therefore, there is a tendency to rely heavily on information extrapolated from the periodontal literature. More studies on the significance of implant maintenance care are required.

Treatment of periimplant mucositis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the most effective treatment for periimplant mucositis in patients with dental implants compared with a control group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed (MEDLINE) literature search was made of articles published up until October 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were stratified according to their level of quality using the Jadad scale and levels of evidence (University of Oxford).

RESULTS

The combinations of search terms resulted in a list of 371 titles. Of these, 114 references were finally reviewed. Finally, 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were thus selected for inclusion in the systematic review. Chlorhexidine, the administration of azithromycin, and glycine powder air polishing are not effective for the treatment of periimplant mucositis. The only effective treatment seems to be the use of toothpaste with 0.3% triclosan.

CONCLUSION

Definitions of periimplant mucositis vary in the literature, and no clear criteria have been established regarding the diagnosis and treatment of this disorder. It highlights our lack of uniform treatment and need to establish additional research to fully provide effective treatments for this common condition. More, larger, and longer-term RCTs are needed in this periimplant disease.

The impact of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on peri-implant disease: What mechanisms are involved in this novel treatment?

According to the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, 3 million Americans have dental implants, and this number is growing by 500,000 each year. Proportionally, the number of biological complications is also increasing. Among them, peri-implant disease is considered the most common cause of implant loss after osseointegration. In this context, microorganisms residing on the surfaces of implants and their prosthetic components are considered to be the primary etiologic factor for peri-implantitis. Some research groups have proposed combining surgical and non-surgical therapies with systemic antibiotics. The major problem associated with the use of antibiotics to treat peri-implantitis is that microorganisms replicate very quickly. Moreover, inappropriate prescription of antibiotics is not only associated with potential resistance but also and most importantly with the development of superinfections that are difficult to eradicate. Although antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) was discovered several years ago, aPDT has only recently emerged as a possible alternative therapy against different oral pathogens causing peri-implantitis. The mechanism of action of aPDT is based on a combination of a photosensitizer drug and light of a specific wavelength in the presence of oxygen. The reaction between light and oxygen produces toxic forms of oxygen species that can kill microbial cells. This mechanism is crucial to the efficacy of aPDT. To help us understand conflicting data, it is necessary to know all the particularities of the etiology of peri-implantitis and the aPDT compounds. We believe that this review will draw attention to new insights regarding the impact of aPDT on peri-implant disease.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

In patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of nonsurgical (i.e. referring to peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) and surgical (i.e. referring to peri-implantitis) treatments with alternative or adjunctive measures on changing signs of inflammation compared with conventional nonsurgical (i.e. mechanical/ultrasonic debridement) and surgical (i.e. open flap debridement) treatments alone? After electronic database and hand search, a total of 40 publications (reporting on 32 studies) were finally considered for the qualitative and quantitative assessment. The weighted mean changes (WM)/ and WM differences (WMD) were estimated for bleeding on probing scores (BOP) and probing pocket depths (PD) (random effect model). Peri-implant mucositis: WMD in BOP and PD reductions amounted to -8.16 % [SE = 4.61] and -0.15 mm [SE = 0.13], not favouring adjunctive antiseptics/antibiotics (local and systemic) over control measures (p > 0.05). Peri-implantitis (nonsurgical): WMD in BOP scores amounted to -23.12 % [SE = 4.81] and -16.53 % [SE = 4.41], favouring alternative measures (glycine powder air polishing, Er:YAG laser) for plaque removal and adjunctive local antibiotics over control measures (p < 0.001), respectively. Peri-implantitis (surgical): WMD in BOP and PD reductions did not favour alternative over control measures for surface decontamination. WM reductions following open flap surgery (±resective therapy) and adjunctive augmentative therapy amounted to 34.81 and 50.73 % for BOP and 1.75 and 2.20 mm for PD, respectively. While mechanical debridement alone was found to be effective for the management of peri-implant mucositis, alternative/adjunctive measures may improve the efficacy over/of conventional nonsurgical treatments at peri-implantitis sites. Adjunctive resective and/or augmentative measures are promising; however, their beneficial effect on the clinical outcome of surgical treatments needs to be further investigated.

Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at zirconia implants: a prospective case series

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of non-surgical therapy for the management of peri-implant diseases at a two-piece zirconium implant system.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Thirty-four patients with 45 implants participated in this study. Seventeen patients (24 implants) were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and received mechanical debridement + local antiseptic therapy using chlorhexidine digluconate (MD + CXH), while 17 patients (21 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis were assigned to Er:YAG laser therapy. In both groups, post-operative maintenance care included supramucosal plaque removal and local pocket irrigation using CHX. The primary endpoint was defined as disease resolution at 6 months (i.e. absence of bleeding upon probing (BOP) at mucositis sites/absence of BOP and probing pocket depths (PD) ≥6 mm at peri-implantitis sites).

RESULTS

Resolution of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was obtained in 9/17 (52.9%) (p = 0.001) and 5/17 (29.4%) (p = 0.02) of the patients respectively.

CONCLUSION

Non-surgical treatment of either peri-implant mucositis using MD + CHX or peri-implantitis using ERL at zirconia implants was associated with significant short-term clinical improvements. A complete disease resolution, however, was not achieved in the majority of the patients.

Probiotic supplements and debridement of peri-implant mucositis: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial was to evaluate the effects of probiotic supplements in adjunct to conventional management of peri-implant mucositis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-nine adult patients with peri-implant mucositis were consecutively recruited after informed consent. After initial mechanical debridement and oral hygiene instructions, the patients received a topical oil application (active or placebo) followed by twice-daily intake of lozenges (active or placebo) for 3 months. The active products contained a mix of two strains of Lactobacillus reuteri. Patients were clinically monitored and sampled at baseline and after 1, 2, 4, 12 and 26 weeks. The clinical end-points were pocket-probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI) and bleeding on probing (BOP). In addition, the subgingival microbiota was processed with checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization and samples of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were analyzed for selected cytokines with the aid of multiplex immunoassays.

RESULTS

After 4 and 12 weeks, all clinical parameters were improved in both the test and the placebo group. PPD and BOP were significantly reduced compared with baseline (p < 0.05), but no significant differences were displayed between the groups. The clinical improvements persisted 3 months after the intervention. No major alterations of the subgingival microflora were disclosed and the levels of inflammatory mediators in GCF did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical debridement and oral hygiene reinforcement resulted in clinical improvement of peri-implant mucositis and a reduction in cytokine levels. Probiotic supplements did not provide added benefit to placebo.