Search

To evaluate possible benefits of the adjunctive use of light-activated disinfection (LAD) in the treatment of peri-implantitis.Eighty patients with at least one implant affected by peri-implantitis defined as at least 3 mm of bone loss from the baseline radiographs in the presence of signs of infection (pus exudation and/or soft tissue swelling and/or soft tissue redness) were nonsurgically or surgically treated. A total of 50% were randomly allocated to receive an additional treatment of LAD (FotoSan) according to a parallel group design at four different centres. Only one implant per patient was considered. Outcome measures recorded up to 4 months after treatment were implant failures, complications, probing pocket depth (PPD) changes and number of re-treatment sessions recorded by blinded assessors. Patients were followed for 4 months after treatment.Five treated patients did not fit the original inclusion criteria, 4 because they were not affected by peri-implantitis (as defined in the present study) and one because the patient was treated with antibiotics, however they were included according to an intention-to-treat analysis concept. Nine patients of the LAD group were treated surgically versus 10 control patients. After 4 months, 1 patient dropped out from the LAD group and no implant failed. Fifteen implants had to be re-treated in the LAD group versus 16 implants in the control group, the difference was not significant. Three minor complications occurred: 2 in the LAD group and 1 in the control group. PPD significantly decreased in both groups, and at 4 months there was no significant differences between groups (difference -0.12 mm, 95% CI of difference -0.94 to 0.69, P = 0.77). There were significant differences between centres for number of re-treatments needed, PPD changes, plaque and marginal bleeding 4 months after treatment. The results did not change when removing the 5 patients who did not match the present inclusion criteria.The use of adjunctive LAD therapy with mechanical cleaning of implants affected by peri-implantitis did not improve any clinical outcomes up to 4 months after treatment, however longer follow-ups are needed to evaluate the possible effect of repeated LAD therapy over time.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the adjunctive use of a bone substitute at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets with a residual buccal bone-to-implant gap of at least 1 mm could improve the aesthetic outcome of guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients requiring bone augmentation at a single immediate postextractive implant to improve the aesthetic outcome were randomly allocated to an augmentation procedure using a resorbable barrier alone (GBR group; 40 patients) or a bone substitute plus a resorbable barrier (GBR + BS group; 40 patients) according to a parallel group design at four different centres. Three to 4 months after implant placement/augmentation, implants were loaded with provisional or definitive single crowns. Outcome measures were implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed using the pink esthetic score (PES), patient satisfaction and peri-implant marginal bone levels, recorded by blinded assessors. All patients were followed up to 1 year after loading. RESULTS: One patient dropped out from the GBR group. Seven (9%) implants failed: 2 (5%) in the GBR + BS group and 5 (12.5%) in the GBR group. Six minor complications occurred in the GBR + BS group versus 2 in the GBR group. These differences were not statistically significant. Just after implant placement/augmentation, mean bone levels were -0.21 mm at GBR + BS implants and -1.92 mm at GBR implants whereas at 1 year after loading they were -1.04 and -1.76, respectively. When comparing the two groups, GBR + BS implants had 0.70 mm more peri-implant marginal bone than GBR implants. Aesthetics was scored by a blinded assessor as statistically significantly better for the GBR + BS group. Patients were equally satisfied. There were no differences between centres regarding the clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of additional an organic bovine bone substitute (Endobon) with resorbable collagen barriers (OsseoGuard) in defects around post-extractive implant improves the aesthetic outcome, though single post-extractive implants might be at a higher risk for implant failures.