Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2022, Vol. 54 ›› Issue (1): 119-125. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2022.01.019

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Efficacy of combined application of glycine powder air-polishing in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases

Fei SUN,Si-qi LI,Yi-ping WEI,Jin-sheng ZHONG,Cui WANG(),Wen-jie HU()   

  1. Department of Periodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Center of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & NHC Research Center of Engineering and Technology for Computerized Dentistry, Beijing 100081, China
  • Received:2021-10-11 Online:2022-02-18 Published:2022-02-21
  • Contact: Cui WANG,Wen-jie HU E-mail:wangcui881005@163.com;huwenjie@pkuss.bjmu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    Natural Science Foundation of Beijing(7214273);Peking University Clinical Scientist Program(BMU2019LCKXJ010)

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of combined application of glycine powder air-polishing and mechanical submucosal debridement in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases. Methods: A randomized controlled clinical study was carried out on patients diagnosed with peri-implant diseases in the Department of Periodontology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, between May of 2020 and June of 2021.Twenty-eight patients with totally sixty-two implants were enrolled.The patients were randomly divided into the test group and control group. The patients in the test group (13 subjects/32 implants) received mechanical submucosal debridement using titanium curettes combined with application of glycine powder air-polishing, while the control group (15 subjects/30 implants) received mechanical submucosal debridement using titanium only. Clinical parameters, such as plaque index (PLI), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI) and the percentage of suppuration on probing on implants’ level (SoP%) were measured at baseline and 8 weeks after non-surgical intervention. Changes and group differences of clinical parameters of the implants before and 8 weeks after non-surgical intervention were compared. Results: Mean PLI, PPD, BI of both the test group and control group significantly reduced 8 weeks after non-surgical intervention (P<0.05). Compared with the control group, the test group achieved lower BI (2.7±0.8 vs. 2.2±0.7, P<0.05), more reduction of BI (0.6±0.7 vs. 1.1±0.6, P<0.01) and more reduction of SoP% (21.9% vs. 10%, P<0.05) after non-surgical intervention. Both the control and test groups exhibited comparable PLI and PPD reductions (P>0.05). For the implants diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, the test group revealed more signi-ficant reduction in BI and SoP% than the control group (1.0±0.7 vs. 0.4±0.7, P=0.02; 6.3% vs. 0, P=0.012). There was no significant difference existing in PLI and PD improvement between the control group and test group (P>0.05). For the implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis, there was no significant difference existing in PLI, PPD, BI and SoP% improvement values between the test and control groups (P>0.05). No complications or discomforts were reported during the study. Conclusion: Both treatment procedures could relieve the inflammation of peri-implant soft tissue. Non-surgical mechanical submucosal debridement combined application of glycine powder air-polishing is associated with significant reduction of soft tissue bleeding and suppuration on probing especially in the implants diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis.

Key words: Peri-implantitis, Peri-implant mucositis, Glycine, Powders, Dental polishing

CLC Number: 

  • R781.42

Figure 1

Research flow chart"

Table 1

Baseline implants characteristics"

Items Test group Control group
Peri-implant mucositis
(n=13)		 Peri-implantitis
(n=19)		 Peri-implant mucositis
(n=19)		 Peri-implantitis
(n=11)
Position, n
Anterior maxilla 0 0 1 1
Posterior maxilla 9 12 10 3
Anterior mandibula 0 0 0 0
Posterior mandibula 4 7 8 7
Suppuration, n
No 10 11 16 7
Yes 3 8 3 4
Mean MBL/mm, $\bar{x}\pm s$ 3.1±1.7 3.8±1.5
Mean PPD/mm, $\bar{x}\pm s$ 4.3±0.5 6.3±1.7 4.5±0.9 7.3±1.9

Table 2

Clinical parameters at baseline and 8 weeks after therapy for test group (n=32) and control group (n=30)"

Items Baseline 8 weeks P1
PLI, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 1.5±0.7 0.7±0.7 <0.001
Control group 1.6±0.9 0.9±0.6 <0.001
P2 0.803 0.397
PPD/mm, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 5.5±1.7 4.2±1.3 <0.001
Control group 5.5±1.9 4.6±1.7 <0.001
P2 0.958 0.372
BI, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 3.3±0.6 2.2±0.7 <0.001
Control group 3.3±0.9 2.7±0.8 <0.001
P2 0.687 0.023

Figure 2

Changes of suppuration on probing at baseline and 8 weeks after therapy for the test group and control group SoP%, the percentage of suppuration on probing on implants’ level."

Table 3

Changes of clinical parameters of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis after non-surgical treatment"

Items Peri-implant mucositis Peri-implantitis P1
PLI reduction, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 0.8±0.5 0.8±0.8 0.772
Control group 0.5±0.6 1.1±0.5 0.010
P2 0.189 0.360
PPD reduction/mm, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 0.9±0.5 1.6±1.0 0.025
Control group 0.8±0.6 1.3±0.7 0.034
P2 0.693 0.426
BI reduction, $\bar{x}\pm s$
Test group 1.0±0.7 1.2±0.5 0.396
Control group 0.4±0.7 1.0±0.5 0.029
P2 0.020 0.261
SoP% reduction/%
Test group 6.3 16.7 0.037
Control group 0 10 <0.001
P2 0.012 0.195

Figure 3

Buccal and lingual view in control group at baseline and 8 weeks after therapy Figure 4 Buccal and palatal view intest group at at baseline and 8 weeks after therapy 3A, 3B, the implant 36 presented with signs of inflammation with erythematous and edematous mucosal margins; 3C, 3D, clinical signs of implant 36 improved; 4A, 4B, the mesial papilla of implant 14 was swollen; 4C, 4D, the inflammation of implant 14 relieved."

[1] Howe M-S, Keys W, Richards D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis[J]. J Dent, 2019, 84:9-21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008
[2] Adler L, Buhlin K, Jansson L. Survival and complications: A 9- to 15-year retrospective follow-up of dental implant therapy[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2020, 47(1):67-77.
doi: 10.1111/joor.v47.1
[3] Derks J, Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2015, 42(Suppl 16):S158-S171.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12334
[4] Lupi SM, Granati M, Butera A, et al. Air-abrasive debridement with glycine powder versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine administration for the maintenance of peri-implant health status: A six-month randomized clinical trial[J]. Int J Dent Hyg, 2017, 15(4):287-294.
doi: 10.1111/idh.12206 pmid: 26842543
[5] Jepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, et al. Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: Managing peri-implant mucositis[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2015, 42(Suppl 16):S152-S157.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12369
[6] 靖无迪, 王宪娥, 谢也斯, 等. 甘氨酸龈下喷砂治疗早期种植体周围病的疗效观察[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2017, 52(8):480-485.
[7] Sahm N, Becker J, Santel T, et al. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using an air-abrasive device or mechanical debridement and local application of chlorhexidine: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2011, 38(9):872-878.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.2011.38.issue-9
[8] Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo M G, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2018, 45(Suppl 20):S286-S291.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.2018.45.issue-S20
[9] Shrivastava D, Natoli V, Srivastava KC, et al. Novel approach to dental biofilm management through guided biofilm therapy (GBT): A review[J]. Microorganisms, 2021, 9(9):1966.
doi: 10.3390/microorganisms9091966
[10] Renvert S, Quirynen M. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A narrative review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26(Suppl 11):15-44.
[11] Renvert S, Polyzois I. Risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis: A systematic literature review[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2015, 42(Suppl 16):S172-S186.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12346
[12] Steiger-Ronay V, Merlini A, Wiedemeier DB, et al. Location of unaccessible implant surface areas during debridement in simulated peri-implantitis therapy[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2017, 17(1):137.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0428-8 pmid: 29183313
[13] Cha JK, Paeng K, Jung UW, et al. The effect of five mechanical instrumentation protocols on implant surface topography and roughness: A scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscope analysis[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(6):578-587.
[14] Tong Z, Fu R, Zhu W, et al. Changes in the surface topography and element proportion of clinically failed SLA implants after in vitro debridement by different methods[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2021, 32(3):263-273.
doi: 10.1111/clr.v32.3
[15] Ronay V, Merlini A, Attin T, et al. In vitro cleaning potential of three implant debridement methods. Simulation of the non-surgical approach[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(2):151-155.
[16] Schwarz F, Becker K, Renvert S. Efficacy of air polishing for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review[J]. J Clin Periodontol, 2015, 42(10):951-959.
doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12454 pmid: 26362615
[17] Ji YJ, Tang ZH, Wang R, et al. Effect of glycine powder air-polishing as an adjunct in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A pilot clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2014, 25(6):683-689.
[18] Iatrou P, Chamilos C, Nickles K, et al. In vitro efficacy of three different nonsurgical implant surface decontamination methods in three different defect configurations[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2021, 36(2):271-280.
doi: 10.11607/jomi.8864
[19] John G, Sahm N, Becker J, et al. Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using an air-abrasive device or mechanical debridement and local application of chlorhexidine. Twelve-month follow-up of a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2015, 19(8):1807-1814.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1406-7
[20] Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Trombelli L, Heitz F, et al. A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement vs. non-surgical debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis[J]. J Clin Perio-dontol, 2002, 29(Suppl 3):92-102.
[1] Yao ZHANG,Jinxin GUO,Shijia ZHAN,Enyu HONG,Hui YANG,Anna JIA,Yan CHANG,Yongli GUO,Xuan ZHANG. Role and mechanism of cysteine and glycine-rich protein 2 in the malignant progression of neuroblastoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(3): 495-504.
[2] Fei SUN,Jian LIU,Si-qi LI,Yi-ping WEI,Wen-jie HU,Cui WANG. Profiles and differences of submucosal microbial in peri-implantitis and health implants: A cross-sectional study [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 30-37.
[3] Ling-wei MENG,Xue LI,Sheng-han GAO,Yue LI,Rui-tao CAO,Yi ZHANG,Shao-xia PAN. Comparison of three methods for establishing rat peri-implantitis model [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(1): 22-29.
[4] Zhong ZHANG,Huan-xin MENG,Jie HAN,Li ZHANG,Dong SHI. Effect of vertical soft tissue thickness on clinical manifestation of peri-implant tissue in patients with periodontitis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(2): 332-338.
[5] Dong SHI,Jie CAO,Shi-ai DAI,Huan-xin MENG. Short-term outcome of regenerative surgery treating peri-implantitis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2020, 52(1): 58-63.
[6] ZHANG Hai-dong, ZHANG Li, SHI Dong, HAN Jie, YAN Xia, XIE Ye-si, MENG Huan-xin. Clinical study of locking-taper implants in patients treated for periodontitis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(2): 300-307.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd