Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Treatment of Periimplantitis - Electrolytic Cleaning versus Mechanical and Electrolytic Cleaning - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial – 18 Months Results

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

04 July 2021

Posted:

06 July 2021

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Background: this RCT assesses the 18 months clinical outcomes after regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC). Materials and Methods: 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), 6 (T2) and 12 (T3) months after replacement of the restoration. Results: Mean of PPD changed from 5.8 ± 1.6 mm (T0) to 3.1 ± 1.4 mm (T3). While BoP and suppuration at T0 was 100 % BoP decreased at T2 to 36.8 % and at T3 to 35.3 %. Suppuration could be found 10.6% at T2 and 11.8% at T3. Radiologic bone level measured from the implant shoulder to the first visible bone to implant contact was 4.9 ± 1.9 mm at me-sial and 4.4 ± 2.2 mm at distal sites (T0) and 1.7 ± 1.7 mm and 1.5 ± 17 mm at T3. Conclusions: Significant radiographic bone fill and improvement of clinical parameters were demonstrated 18 months after therapy.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  ;  
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated