Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
Quintessence International
QI Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Accepted Manuscripts
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: QI
Quintessence International

Edited by Eli Eliav

ISSN 0033-6572 (print) • ISSN 1936-7163 (online)

Publication:
March 2014
Volume 45 , Issue 3

Back
Share Abstract:

Evaluation of an air-abrasive device with amino acid glycine-powder during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis

Toma, Selena / Lasserre, Jerome F. / Ta´eb, Johana / Brecx, Michel C.

Pages: 209-219
PMID: 24570988
DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.a31205

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze collected data concerning the effect of an air-abrasive device (Perio-Flow«) during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis without addition of any antimicrobials. Method and Materials: Data reports from 22 implants with peri-implantitis surgically treated using either an air-abrasive device (Perio- Flow) (test group), or plastic curettes and cotton pellets impregnated with saline (control group) were analyzed for the present study. Clinical and radiographic parameters plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bone loss (BL) were previously assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months after treatment. A repeated measures ANOVA test was used for each clinical and radiographic parameter (PI, GI, PPD, and BL). The implant and the patient were considered separately as the statistical unit. Results: Regarding betweengroup comparisons, PI scores remained low during the entire study period (at implant and patient levels). At the end of the study, GI and PPD reductions were statistically higher (P < .05) in the Perio-Flow group (implant level), and no differences were observed between the two groups at patient level (P > .05) (repeated measures ANOVA test). It was also noted that BL analyses (implant and patient levels) revealed no differences between baseline and 12 months in both groups. Nevertheless, only 8% from each treatment group were considered stabilized after 12 months. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, both groups (Perio-Flow and its control group) revealed a significant reduction of the clinical parameters. Moreover, the air-abrasive device group yielded better improvements regarding GI and PPD when the implant was considered as the statistical unit. However, if the stabilization of the disease was the final objective, these two treatments failed in resolving its activity. A longer follow-up and a larger number of patients would be needed to confirm these results and the benefit of adding this air-abrasive method of decontamination to the surgical procedure. Keywords: air-abrasive device, biologic complications, peri-implantitis, plastic curettes, stabilization, surgical treatment

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.
  © 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog