Journal of clinical periodontology · 2012
Treatment of peri-implantitis using multiple applications of chlorhexidine chips: a double-blind, randomized multi-centre clinical trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Machtei Eli E, Frankenthal Shai, Levi Guy, Elimelech Rina, Shoshani Eyal, Rosenfeld Olivia, Tagger-Green Nirit, Shlomi Benjamin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Universal strategies for managing peri-implantitis are yet to be adopted. The aim of this study is to examine a protocol of intensive application of chlorhexidine containing chips in sites with peri-implantitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, parallel, two-arm clinical trial included 60 patients (77 implants) with probing depth (PD) 6-10 mm and bone loss ≥2 mm around 1-2 implants. One to two weeks following SRP, baseline measurements were made followed by implants' debridement. Patients were randomized to receive matrix chips (MatrixC) or chlorhexidine Chips (PerioC). Measurements and chips placement were repeated at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 18. At 6 months, patients returned for final examination.
RESULTS: Probing depth reduction was greater in the PerioC (2.19 ± 0.24 mm) compared with MatrixC (1.59 ± 0.23 mm), p = 0.07. Seventy percentage of the implants in the PerioC and 54% in the MatrixC had PD reduction ≥ 2 mm. Likewise, 40% of the sites (PerioC) and 24% (MatrixC) had PD reduction ≥ 3 mm. Clinical attachment level gains for both groups were significant; however, the changes in the PerioC group were significantly greater than in MatrixC [2.21 ± 0.23 mm. and 1.56 ± 0.25 mm respectively, p = 0.05]. Bleeding on probing was reduced by half in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Frequent placement of PerioC and MatrixC together with implants debridement resulted in a substantial improvement in sites with peri-implantitis. Further studies will be required to fully appreciate the mechanism of this treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, parallel, two-arm clinical trial included 60 patients (77 implants) with probing depth (PD) 6-10 mm and bone loss ≥2 mm around 1-2 implants. One to two weeks following SRP, baseline measurements were made followed by implants' debridement. Patients were randomized to receive matrix chips (MatrixC) or chlorhexidine Chips (PerioC). Measurements and chips placement were repeated at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 18. At 6 months, patients returned for final examination.
RESULTS: Probing depth reduction was greater in the PerioC (2.19 ± 0.24 mm) compared with MatrixC (1.59 ± 0.23 mm), p = 0.07. Seventy percentage of the implants in the PerioC and 54% in the MatrixC had PD reduction ≥ 2 mm. Likewise, 40% of the sites (PerioC) and 24% (MatrixC) had PD reduction ≥ 3 mm. Clinical attachment level gains for both groups were significant; however, the changes in the PerioC group were significantly greater than in MatrixC [2.21 ± 0.23 mm. and 1.56 ± 0.25 mm respectively, p = 0.05]. Bleeding on probing was reduced by half in both groups.
CONCLUSION: Frequent placement of PerioC and MatrixC together with implants debridement resulted in a substantial improvement in sites with peri-implantitis. Further studies will be required to fully appreciate the mechanism of this treatment.