Treatment of Periimplantitis with Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning: 18-Month Results from a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

• Main Authors: Markus Schlee, Hom-Lay Wang, Thomas Stumpf, Urs Brodbeck, Dieter Bosshardt, Florian Rathe
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-08-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical Medicine
• Subjects: periimplantitis; electrolytic cleaning; air abrasive; augmentation; long term
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/10/16/3475

<b>Aim of the study:</b> This RCT assesses patients’ 18-month clinical outcomes after the regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and an electrolytic method (PEC). <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Twenty-four patients (24 implants) suffering from periimplantitis were randomly treated by EC or PEC followed by augmentation and submerged healing. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP), suppuration, and standardized radiographs were assessed before surgery (T0), 6 months after augmentation (T1), and 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after the replacement of the restoration. <b>Results:</b> The mean PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 were 100%, BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8% and at T3 to 35.3%. Suppuration was found to be at a level of 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. The radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to the implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at mesial sites and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites at T0 and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. <b>Conclusions:</b> Significant radiographic bone fill and the improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.