Clinical and microbiologic effects of chemical versus mechanical cleansingin professional supportive implant therapy

Citation
H. Strooker et al., Clinical and microbiologic effects of chemical versus mechanical cleansingin professional supportive implant therapy, INT J O M I, 13(6), 1998, pp. 845-850
Citations number
25
Language
INGLESE
art.tipo
Article
Categorie Soggetti
Dentistry/Oral Surgery & Medicine
Journal title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS
ISSN journal
0882-2786 → ACNP
Volume
13
Issue
6
Year of publication
1998
Pages
845 - 850
Database
ISI
SICI code
0882-2786(199811/12)13:6<845:CAMEOC>2.0.ZU;2-K
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the cleansing properties of mec hanical supportive care for dental implants with the use of an etching gel. Sixteen patients underwent a 5-month clinical trial with monthly recalls. These patients, wearing maxillary complete dentures and mandibular overdent ures supported by a bar device on 4 implants, were treated in a split-mouth study design. Test and control therapy were randomly assigned to left and right sides of the mandible. At the test side, 35% phosphoric etching gel ( pH 1) was applied in the periimplant sulcus. After 1 minute, the sulcus was thoroughly rinsed with a water spray for approximately 15 seconds per impl ants, Control therapy consisted of supra- and subgingival debridement using carbon fiber curettes and a rubber cup. Plaque, calculus, probing pocket d epth, and modified Gingival Index were determined before each treatment. Mi crobiologic evaluation was performed at baseline, 1 month later, and 5 mont hs later, just before and immediately after each treatment. Per treatment a nd per assessment, the mean scores of all clinical parameters were calculat ed for each patient. The number of colony-forming units was used as the pri mary efficacy variable in the analysis of microbiologic data. At baseline, no differences between test and control sites were observed for any of the clinical parameters. The mean Gingival Index and the mean probing pocket de pth were reduced over the 5-month period. The mean reduction in Gingival In dex at the test sites proved to be significantly larger at the control site s (P = .03). Both treatment modalities resulted in an instant reduction of the number of colony-forming units, where the reduction by chemical cleanin g was larger (P < .05). This short-term study employing a high recall frequ ency indicates that local application of 35% phosphoric acid gel can be as effective as conventional mechanical supportive therapy. (Int J Oral Maxill ofac Implants 1998;13:845-850).