A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Erythritol powder airflow for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of air-abrasive powder versus chlorhexidine (CHX) for treating peri-implant mucositis, a reversible inflammatory condition that can lead to more severe issues if left untreated.
  • Methodologically, one group received traditional plaque removal with CHX, while another group used erythritol powder for biofilm removal, assessing various clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes over 12 months.
  • Results indicated that both treatments were effective, with the test group showing slightly better outcomes in bleeding index and patient taste sensation, suggesting air-abrasive powders could be a viable alternative to antiseptic treatments.

Article Abstract

Objectives: Peri-implant mucositis is a biofilm-related, reversible inflammatory disease that can evolve into peri-implantitis if not adequately treated. The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of air-abrasive powder as compared to chlorhexidine (CHX) for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and occurrence of peri-implantitis 12 months after treatment.

Methods: In the control group, full-mouth calculus and plaque removal was performed with ultrasound and manual devices, and a 1.0% CHX gel was applied; in the test group, supra- and subgingival biofilm removal was performed using erythritol powder with a dedicated nozzle and calculus removal was performed with ultrasonic instruments if needed. Bleeding and plaque indexes, peri-implant probing depth and tissue level were measured at 1 week, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, while PROMs were evaluated up to 7 days after treatment.

Results: Among 80 included implants, 70 were analysed at 12 months follow-up (30 in the test group, 40 in the control group, and 20 subjects). Success rates (implant-level) in terms of bleeding index were significantly different between the test (96.7%) and control group (92.5%); as for PROMs, only taste sensation was significantly better in the test group. The test group was significantly correlated to the smallest changes in peri-implant probing depth between baseline and 3 months.

Conclusions: The study showed that both treatment strategies are effective. This suggests that the use of air-abrasive powders could be used as an alternative biofilm removal method instead of adjunctive treatments with antiseptics.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/idh.12814DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

test group
16
peri-implant mucositis
12
control group
12
removal performed
12
erythritol powder
8
treatment peri-implant
8
randomized controlled
8
controlled clinical
8
clinical trial
8
biofilm removal
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!