Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical debridement with repeated diode laser application in comparison to surgical treatment for management of peri-implantitis.</p> Materials and methods <p>Forty patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomised into two groups. The test group received mechanical debridement and repeated diode laser therapy at Days 0, 7 and 14. The control group received mechanical debridement at Day 0 followed by surgical treatment at Day 14. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 3 and 12&#xa0;months.</p> Results <p>Thirty-six participants (test <i>n</i> = 17, control <i>n</i> = 19) completed the 12-month observation period. Laser treatment failed in 4 cases (23.5%); of which 3 implants lost osseointegration and one necessitated surgical treatment due to progressively increasing probing depths (PD) and bone loss. In comparison, the control group showed a 100% survival rate with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (<i>p</i> = 0.04). Therefore, thirty-two participants were examined at the final evaluation (test <i>n</i> = 13, control <i>n</i> = 19). Twenty-two implants (57.9%) showed complete disease resolution without significant differences between the groups. The test group reported significantly lower post-operative discomfort on the visual analogue scale (VAS). At 3&#xa0;months, both groups showed clinical signs of healing with reduction in probing depths (PD) and bleeding upon probing. Surgical treatment resulted in significantly lower PDs (control 3.7&#xa0;mm [3.2, 4.0], test 4.5&#xa0;mm [3.8, 4.8]), but recession was significantly higher (control 0.5&#xa0;mm [0.3, 1.2], test 0&#xa0;mm [0.0, 0.3]). At the final reevaluation, PD values remained significantly lower in the control group; 3.3&#xa0;mm [3.1, 3.9] compared to 4.3&#xa0;mm [3.7, 4.8] for the test group, but the difference in mucosal recession fell below the level of significance. Marginal bone levels improved after one year without significant differences between the two groups (Test = 3.5&#xa0;mm [2.8, 4.6] at baseline and 1.5&#xa0;mm [1.0, 4.4] at one year, Control = 2.8&#xa0;mm [2.5, 3.1] at baseline and 1.4&#xa0;mm [1.0, 2.6] at one year).</p> Conclusion <p>Surgical approaches for management of peri-implantitis demonstrated significant benefits over laser therapy in terms of treatment success and PD reduction. Nevertheless, diode laser therapy, as described in this study, could represent a minimally invasive alternative for treatment of non-advanced peri-implantitis defects.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A randomised clinical trial comparing a surgical approach for treatment of peri-implantitis to non-surgical debridement with adjunctive diode laser therapy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年2月19日

查看全文
  • Dena Hashim,
  • Delphine Courvoisier,
  • Norbert Cionca

摘要

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical debridement with repeated diode laser application in comparison to surgical treatment for management of peri-implantitis.

Materials and methods

Forty patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomised into two groups. The test group received mechanical debridement and repeated diode laser therapy at Days 0, 7 and 14. The control group received mechanical debridement at Day 0 followed by surgical treatment at Day 14. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 3 and 12 months.

Results

Thirty-six participants (test n = 17, control n = 19) completed the 12-month observation period. Laser treatment failed in 4 cases (23.5%); of which 3 implants lost osseointegration and one necessitated surgical treatment due to progressively increasing probing depths (PD) and bone loss. In comparison, the control group showed a 100% survival rate with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.04). Therefore, thirty-two participants were examined at the final evaluation (test n = 13, control n = 19). Twenty-two implants (57.9%) showed complete disease resolution without significant differences between the groups. The test group reported significantly lower post-operative discomfort on the visual analogue scale (VAS). At 3 months, both groups showed clinical signs of healing with reduction in probing depths (PD) and bleeding upon probing. Surgical treatment resulted in significantly lower PDs (control 3.7 mm [3.2, 4.0], test 4.5 mm [3.8, 4.8]), but recession was significantly higher (control 0.5 mm [0.3, 1.2], test 0 mm [0.0, 0.3]). At the final reevaluation, PD values remained significantly lower in the control group; 3.3 mm [3.1, 3.9] compared to 4.3 mm [3.7, 4.8] for the test group, but the difference in mucosal recession fell below the level of significance. Marginal bone levels improved after one year without significant differences between the two groups (Test = 3.5 mm [2.8, 4.6] at baseline and 1.5 mm [1.0, 4.4] at one year, Control = 2.8 mm [2.5, 3.1] at baseline and 1.4 mm [1.0, 2.6] at one year).

Conclusion

Surgical approaches for management of peri-implantitis demonstrated significant benefits over laser therapy in terms of treatment success and PD reduction. Nevertheless, diode laser therapy, as described in this study, could represent a minimally invasive alternative for treatment of non-advanced peri-implantitis defects.