We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 1     9. Mar. 2015
Eur J Oral Implantol 8 (2015), No. 1  (09.03.2015)

Page 65-73, PubMed:25738180


How do peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis respond to supragingival biofilm control - an intra-individual longitudinal cohort study
Gomes, Sabrina Carvalho / Corvello, Paula / Romagna, Rachel / Müller, Luis Henrique / Angst, Patrícia Daniela Melchiors / Oppermann, Rui Vicente
Purpose: This single-arm study to compare the gingival with peri-implant mucosal inflammatory response to a mechanical supragingival-supramucosal biofilm control program.
Materials and methods: Twenty-two participants (55.7 ± 11.2 years) with both gingivitis and periimplant mucositis were examined at days 0, 30 and 390 (full mouth/6 sites per tooth/implant [TTH/IMPL]) for visible plaque (VPI), gingival bleeding (GBI), modified plaque (mPlI) and bleeding indexes (mBI), probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). The biofilm control was carried out weekly in the first month and every 3 months thereafter. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed (drop-out rate = 8) and linear models were used against comparisons in order to look at the clustering of TTH/IMPL by each individual.
Results: VPI/mPlI and GBI/mBI reduced from day 0 onwards. Intra-group reductions (P < 0.05) were observed at day 30. PD values (in mm) were higher (P < 0.001) for IMPL than for TTH [mean difference (95% CI) at day 0: -1.10 (-1.58 to -0.63); day 30: -0.88 (-1.28 to -0.48); and day 390: -0.60 (-0.84 to -0.33)], where both groups showed reductions (P < 0.05) throughout the study. BOP was greater (P = 0.00001) for IMPL at baseline [mean difference (95% CI): -0.24 (-0.31 to -0.17)] but reduced (P = 0.00001) and showed similar levels to TTH from day 30 onwards. With regard to sites with the greatest PD, BOP reduced (P < 0.05) in both IMPL and TTH, with greater PD reductions observed for IMPL (P = 0.00001).
Conclusions: The supragingival-supramucosal biofilm control benefited both teeth and implants.

Keywords: dental implant, dental plaque, gingivitis, inflammation, peri-implant mucositis
fulltext (no access granted) order article as PDF-file (20.00 €)