10 Year Follow-up on Reconstructive Bone Procedures for Peri-implantitis

Peri-Implantitis

peri.implantitis, reconstructive surgery, long time follo-up

The purpose of this 10 year observational follow-up study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Two treatment approaches have been compared using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane.The objective was to assess their effectiveness and determine wheter one treatment strategy provided superior long-term outcomes. Participants were invited for clinical and radiographic examinations of the previously treated implant. Clinical assessments included probing pocket depth measurements, evaluation of bleeding on probing, presence of suppuration, and radiographic assessment of peri-implant bone levels.

The objective of this 10-year observational follow-up study was to investigate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of reconstructive surgical treatment and to evaluate potential differences between two reconstructive treatment protocols. The study population consisted of patients previously treated for per-implantitis using one of the following approaches. Group 1: Surgical treatment using a bone substitute material (Algipor) combined with a barrier membrane (Osseoquest) Group 2: Surgical treatment using a bone substitute materail alone (Algipor) At the time of treatment, all patients received systemic antibiotic therapy consisting of Amoxicillin 375 mg three times daily and Metronidazole 400 mg twice daily for 10 days, initiated one day before surgery. The study aimed to provide further knowledge regarding the long-term effectiveness and stability of reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment and to investigate potential differences between the two treatment modalities. Following surgery all patients participated in a structured supportive maintanance program with supportive periodontal therapy every third month and annual clinical evaluations. At the 10 year follow-up examination, the implant(s) was assessed clinically and radiographically. Clinical parameters included probing pocket depht, bleeding on probing, suppuration, plaque accumulation and implant survival. Probing measurements were performed using a standardized probing force of 0.25 N with a calibrated periodontal probe. Bleeding scores were recorded at four sites per implant using the following scale: 0=no bleeding 1. bleeding point 2. bleeding line 3. drop of blood Plaque accumulation was recorded as present or absent, following plaque disclosure. To minimize examiner variability, all clinical examinations was performed by the same periodontist. The primary outcome measures were radiographic bone fill and changes in probing pocket depth at treated implant sites. Secondary outcome measures included bleeding on probing, suppuration, plaque scores, and implant survival. Statistical analyses were performed using parametric or non-parametric methods depending on data distribution. Statistical significance was defined as p\< 0.05. Patients received both oral and written information regarding the study and provided written informed consent prior to participation. Participation was voluntary and the participants could withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. The study had received approval from the appropiate ethical reiew authority.

No related papers found yet.

Sweden