We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 44 (2013), No. 8     15. July 2013
Quintessence Int 44 (2013), No. 8  (15.07.2013)

Page 609-618, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a29505, PubMed:23534047


Nonsurgical antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in moderate vs severe peri-implant defects: A clinical pilot study
Deppe, Herbert / Mücke, Thomas / Wagenpfeil, Stefan / Kesting, Marco / Sculean, Anton
Objective: Recent review articles have shown that open debridement is more effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis than closed therapy. However, surgery may result in marginal recession and compromise esthetics. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of nonsurgical antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in moderate vs severe defects.
Method and Materials: The study encompassed 16 patients with a total of 18 ailing implants. Ten of these implants showed moderate bone loss (< 5 mm; Group 1) and eight implants severe defects (5 through 8 mm; Group 2). All implants received aPDT without surgical intervention. At baseline and 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months after therapy, peri-implant health was assessed including sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD), distance from implant shoulder to marginal mucosa (DIM), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Radiographic evaluation of distance from implant to bone (DIB) allowed comparison of peri-implant hard tissues after 6 months.
Results: Baseline values for SBI were comparable in both groups. Three months after therapy, in both groups, SBI and CAL decreased significantly. In contrast, after 6 months, CAL and DIB increased significantly in Group 2, not in Group 1. However, DIM-values were not statistically different 6 months after therapy in both groups.
Conclusion: Within the limits of this 6-month study, nonsurgical aPDT could stop bone resorption in moderate peri-implant defects but not in severe defects. However, marginal tissue recession was not significantly different in both groups at the end of the study. Therefore, especially in esthetically important sites, surgical treatment of severe peri-implantitis defects seems to remain mandatory.

Keywords: antibacterial photodynamic therapy, laser, peri-implantitis