Background
Peri-implantitis may affect approximately one fifth of the implant-supported individuals. RCT on surgical treatment of peri-implantitis as well as long-term follow-ups are scarce. In the 1-year follow-up of this RCT bone gain was significantly associated with EMD. To investigate if this finding could influence the long-term result of peri-implant surgery a 3-years follow-up has been performed.
Aims
In a randomized controlled intervention study (RCT) investigate differences in clinical outcomes three years after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
Methods
Twenty-nine patients referred to the Department of Periodontology, met following inclusion criteria: one implant in each patient with an angular bone defect >/=3mm at implant site and a pocket depth >/=5mm with bleeding and/or pus. Allocation was performed by block randomization to surgical treatment with EMD (15) or without EMD (14). Examiner assessing the outcomes was blinded to group assignment. Primary outcomes at 3 years were marginal bone level (BL) change measured on digital x-rays and implant survival. Secondary outcomes were pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), pus at implant site. Statistical analysis: Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02500654.
Results
At the 3-years follow-up, 11 implants remained in the EMD group and 7 in the non-EMD group. Two implants in the non-EMD group and none in the EMD group were removed due to reinfection. Three implants in the non-EMD group and two implants in the EMD group were excluded due to retreatment. Two patients in each group discontinued the study before follow up.There was no significant difference between the groups regarding PD, BOP, PUS, PI at implant site.BL change from baseline to 3-years follow up was in the EMD group +1.1mm and +0.2mm in the non-EMD group, but there was no significant difference between the groups (p=0.43)
Conclusions
In the EMD group, fewer implants were lost and slightly more bone gain was seen in the 3-years follow-up, indicating that EMD might prolong the survival of implants following surgical treatment. However, larger RCTs are needed to confirm the results from this study.
Background
Peri-implantitis may affect approximately one fifth of the implant-supported individuals. RCT on surgical treatment of peri-implantitis as well as long-term follow-ups are scarce. In the 1-year follow-up of this RCT bone gain was significantly associated with EMD. To investigate if this finding could influence the long-term result of peri-implant surgery a 3-years follow-up has been performed.
Aims
In a randomized controlled intervention study (RCT) investigate differences in clinical outcomes three years after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
Methods
Twenty-nine patients referred to the Department of Periodontology, met following inclusion criteria: one implant in each patient with an angular bone defect >/=3mm at implant site and a pocket depth >/=5mm with bleeding and/or pus. Allocation was performed by block randomization to surgical treatment with EMD (15) or without EMD (14). Examiner assessing the outcomes was blinded to group assignment. Primary outcomes at 3 years were marginal bone level (BL) change measured on digital x-rays and implant survival. Secondary outcomes were pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), pus at implant site. Statistical analysis: Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02500654.
Results
At the 3-years follow-up, 11 implants remained in the EMD group and 7 in the non-EMD group. Two implants in the non-EMD group and none in the EMD group were removed due to reinfection. Three implants in the non-EMD group and two implants in the EMD group were excluded due to retreatment. Two patients in each group discontinued the study before follow up.There was no significant difference between the groups regarding PD, BOP, PUS, PI at implant site.BL change from baseline to 3-years follow up was in the EMD group +1.1mm and +0.2mm in the non-EMD group, but there was no significant difference between the groups (p=0.43)
Conclusions
In the EMD group, fewer implants were lost and slightly more bone gain was seen in the 3-years follow-up, indicating that EMD might prolong the survival of implants following surgical treatment. However, larger RCTs are needed to confirm the results from this study.
Background
Peri-implantitis may affect approximately one fifth of the implant-supported individuals. RCT on surgical treatment of peri-implantitis as well as long-term follow-ups are scarce. In the 1-year follow-up of this RCT bone gain was significantly associated with EMD. To investigate if this finding could influence the long-term result of peri-implant surgery a 3-years follow-up has been performed.
Aims
In a randomized controlled intervention study (RCT) investigate differences in clinical outcomes three years after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
Methods
Twenty-nine patients referred to the Department of Periodontology, met following inclusion criteria: one implant in each patient with an angular bone defect >/=3mm at implant site and a pocket depth >/=5mm with bleeding and/or pus. Allocation was performed by block randomization to surgical treatment with EMD (15) or without EMD (14). Examiner assessing the outcomes was blinded to group assignment. Primary outcomes at 3 years were marginal bone level (BL) change measured on digital x-rays and implant survival. Secondary outcomes were pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), pus at implant site. Statistical analysis: Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02500654.
Results
At the 3-years follow-up, 11 implants remained in the EMD group and 7 in the non-EMD group. Two implants in the non-EMD group and none in the EMD group were removed due to reinfection. Three implants in the non-EMD group and two implants in the EMD group were excluded due to retreatment. Two patients in each group discontinued the study before follow up.There was no significant difference between the groups regarding PD, BOP, PUS, PI at implant site.BL change from baseline to 3-years follow up was in the EMD group +1.1mm and +0.2mm in the non-EMD group, but there was no significant difference between the groups (p=0.43)
Conclusions
In the EMD group, fewer implants were lost and slightly more bone gain was seen in the 3-years follow-up, indicating that EMD might prolong the survival of implants following surgical treatment. However, larger RCTs are needed to confirm the results from this study.
Background
Peri-implantitis may affect approximately one fifth of the implant-supported individuals. RCT on surgical treatment of peri-implantitis as well as long-term follow-ups are scarce. In the 1-year follow-up of this RCT bone gain was significantly associated with EMD. To investigate if this finding could influence the long-term result of peri-implant surgery a 3-years follow-up has been performed.
Aims
In a randomized controlled intervention study (RCT) investigate differences in clinical outcomes three years after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive enamel matrix derivative (EMD).
Methods
Twenty-nine patients referred to the Department of Periodontology, met following inclusion criteria: one implant in each patient with an angular bone defect >/=3mm at implant site and a pocket depth >/=5mm with bleeding and/or pus. Allocation was performed by block randomization to surgical treatment with EMD (15) or without EMD (14). Examiner assessing the outcomes was blinded to group assignment. Primary outcomes at 3 years were marginal bone level (BL) change measured on digital x-rays and implant survival. Secondary outcomes were pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), pus at implant site. Statistical analysis: Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Sign Rank test. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02500654.
Results
At the 3-years follow-up, 11 implants remained in the EMD group and 7 in the non-EMD group. Two implants in the non-EMD group and none in the EMD group were removed due to reinfection. Three implants in the non-EMD group and two implants in the EMD group were excluded due to retreatment. Two patients in each group discontinued the study before follow up.There was no significant difference between the groups regarding PD, BOP, PUS, PI at implant site.BL change from baseline to 3-years follow up was in the EMD group +1.1mm and +0.2mm in the non-EMD group, but there was no significant difference between the groups (p=0.43)
Conclusions
In the EMD group, fewer implants were lost and slightly more bone gain was seen in the 3-years follow-up, indicating that EMD might prolong the survival of implants following surgical treatment. However, larger RCTs are needed to confirm the results from this study.