Next Article in Journal
Systematic Balance Exercises Influence Cortical Activation and Serum BDNF Levels in Older Adults
Previous Article in Journal
Predictive Validity of the qSOFA Score for Sepsis in Adults with Community-Onset Staphylococcal Infection in Thailand
Previous Article in Special Issue
Heat Generation at the Implant–Bone Interface by Insertion of Ceramic and Titanium Implants
Open AccessArticle

Treatment of Peri-implantitis—Electrolytic Cleaning Versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning—A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial—Six-Month Results

1
Private Practice and Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Private Practice and Department of Prosthodontics, Danube University, 3500 Krems, Austria
3
Private Practice, 8051 Zürich, Switzerland
4
Department of Prosthodontics, Goethe University, 60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8(11), 1909; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8111909
Received: 29 October 2019 / Accepted: 4 November 2019 / Published: 7 November 2019
Objectives: The present randomized clinical trial assesses the six-month outcomes following surgical regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: 24 patients with 24 implants suffering from peri-implantitis with any type of bone defect were randomly treated by EC or PEC. Bone defects were augmented with a mixture of natural bone mineral and autogenous bone and left for submerged healing. The distance from implant shoulder to bone was assessed at six defined points at baseline (T0) and after six months at uncovering surgery (T1) by periodontal probe and standardized x-rays. Results: One implant had to be removed at T1 because of reinfection and other obstacles. None of the other implants showed signs of inflammation. Bone gain was 2.71 ± 1.70 mm for EC and 2.81 ± 2.15 mm for PEC. No statistically significant difference between EC and PEC was detected. Significant clinical bone fill was observed for all 24 implants. Complete regeneration of bone was achieved in 12 implants. Defect morphology impacted the amount of regeneration. Conclusion: EC needs no further mechanical cleaning by powder spray. Complete re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis cases is possible.
Keywords: periimplantitis; electrolytic cleaning; augmentation; air flow; re-osseointegration; classification of bone defects periimplantitis; electrolytic cleaning; augmentation; air flow; re-osseointegration; classification of bone defects
MDPI and ACS Style

Schlee, M.; Rathe, F.; Brodbeck, U.; Ratka, C.; Weigl, P.; Zipprich, H. Treatment of Peri-implantitis—Electrolytic Cleaning Versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning—A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial—Six-Month Results. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 1909.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop