Evidence Hub

Volumetric tissue changes following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A 2-year follow-up analysis. A prospective case series

Obreja K, Galarraga-Vinueza ME, Müller K, Begic A, Ramanauskaite A, Schwarz F

Clinical implant dentistry and related research, 2022

28 participants

Abstract

AIM: To assess volumetric tissue changes following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis over a follow-up period of 24 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients (n = 28 implants) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and underwent access flap surgery, implantoplasty, and augmentative therapy at intrabony components (ie, combined therapy) using a natural bone mineral and a native collagen membrane. The peri-implant region of interest (ROI) was intraorally scanned pre-operatively (S0), and after 12 (S3) and 24 (S4) months. Digital files were superimposed for the assessment of volumetric changes between the referred time points. The change in thickness was assessed at a standardized ROI, segmented into two equidistant sections (ie, marginal and apical).

RESULTS: Peri-implant tissues exhibited a nonsignificant mean thickness loss of 0.16 (95% CI: -4 to 0.06) and 0.17 mm (95% CI: -0.05 to 0.4) at S3 and S4, respectively. S0-S3 dimensional thickness changes at marginal and apical areas were -0.24 (95% CI: -0.48 to 0.002) and -0.19 mm (95% CI: -0.36 to -0.2), respectively. Dimensional changes from S0 to S4 amounted to -0.22 mm (95% CI: -0.46 to 0.02) and -0.07 mm (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.2), respectively. The thickness changes at marginal and apical ROIs were significant from S0 to S3. Clinical parameters (ie, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing depth) significantly improved over the 24-month follow-up period. Linear regression analyses revealed no…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 28 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free