We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 6 (2013), No. 2     23. July 2013
Eur J Oral Implantol 6 (2013), No. 2  (23.07.2013)

Page 109-119, PubMed:23926583


The adjunctive use of light-activated disinfection (LAD) with FotoSan is ineffective in the treatment of peri-implantitis: 1-year results from a multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled trial
Esposito, Marco / Grusovin, Maria Gabriella / De Angelis, Nicola / Camurati, Andrea / Campailla, Michele / Felice, Pietro
Purpose: To evaluate possible benefits of the adjunctive use of light-activated disinfection (LAD) in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
Materials and methods: A total of 80 patients with at least one implant affected by peri-implantitis defined as at least 3 mm of bone loss on baseline radiographs in the presence of signs of infection (pus exudation and/or soft tissue swelling and/or soft tissue redness) were non-surgically or surgically treated for peri-implantitis and 50% of them were randomly allocated to receive an additional LAD treatment (FotoSan) according to a parallel group design at four different centres. Only one implant per patient was considered. Outcome measures were implant failures, recurrence of peri-implantitis, complications, peri-implant marginal bone level (RAD) changes, probing pocket depth (PPD) changes and number of re-treatment sessions recorded by blinded assessors. Patients were followed up for 1 year after treatment.
Results: Five treated patients did not fit the original inclusion criteria: 4 because they were not affected by the present definition of peri-implantitis and 1 due to being 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 1 year, 3 patients dropped out, all from the LAD group. One implant treated with the LAD therapy failed versus none of the control group. Four complications occurred: 3 in 3 patients of the LAD group and 1 in the control group. Recurrence of peri-implantitis defined as 2 mm of peri-implant bone loss or more recorded on standardised periapical radiographs was observed in 6 patients, 3 from each group. In total, 29 implants were re-treated 1 to 4 times in the LAD group versus 33 implants 1 to 4 times in the control group; the difference was not statistically significant. Peri-implant marginal bone levels remained stable up to 1 year with no statistically significant differences between groups (0.13 mm favouring LAD therapy; 95% CI of difference -0.47 to 0.72; P = 0.68). PPD significantly reduced in both groups, and at 1 year there were no significant differences between groups (difference 0.19 mm favouring LAD therapy; 95% CI of difference -0.70 to 1.07; P = 0.68). There were significant differences between centres for the number of re-treatment sessions delivered, PPD changes, plaque and marginal bleeding 1 year after treatment, but not for implant failures, complications, RAD changes and recurrence of peri-implantitis. The results did not change when removing the 5 patients who did not match the original inclusion criteria.
Conclusions: Adjunctive use of LAD therapy (FotoSan) with mechanical cleaning of implants affected by peri-implantitis did not improve any clinical outcomes when compared to mechanical cleaning alone up to 1 year after treatment.

Keywords: infection, light-activated disinfection, peri-implantitis