hkr.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bonegraft substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: 3-year radiographic control
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society.
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society.
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society.
Kristianstad University, School of Health and Society.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0992-2362
2009 (English)In: Europerio 6: Stockholm, Sweden, 4-6 June 2009 / [ed] Tonetti, Maurizio, Renvert, Stefan, 2009, 24- p.Conference paper, Abstract (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

Background: Infection and inflammation in tissues adjacent to dental implants are common. There are few controlled studies assessing interventions. We assessed if mechanical debridement with titanium curettes, is equally effective as an ultrasonic device in reducing clinical signs of inflammation and the total bacterial load. Materials and methods: Thrity two subjects (mean age 62.5 S.D ± 11.7) with one implant each demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized in two intervention groups. Clinical and microbiological data were obtained before and during 6 months. Group one received debridement using titanium hand-instruments and group two received ultrasonic treatment using a coated working end. Results: At the different time-points, data analysis by independent t–test, or Mann–Whitney U tests failed to demonstrate group differences. Comparing baseline data with results at 6 months (merged groups) demonstrated that overall PI scores and at implants decreased (mean diff: 20.2%, S.E ± 6.3, 95%CI: 7.0 to 32.7, P < 0.002) and (mean diff: 27.2% S.E ± 7.9, 95%CI: 11.3 to 43.1, P < 0.001). Bleeding scores at implants improved (P < 0.01). PPD scores at implants did not improve (P = 0.30). Conclusions: No differences in treatment outcomes between the two treatment methods studied were found. While PI and BOP scores improved no effects in PPD were identified.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. 24- p.
Series
Journal of Clinical Periodontology, ISSN 0303-6979 ; 36(Suppl. 9)
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-5502DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01403.xOAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-5502DiVA: diva2:280580
Conference
Europerio 6
Available from: 2009-12-10 Created: 2009-12-10 Last updated: 2014-07-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Lindahl, ChristelRenvert, Stefan
By organisation
School of Health and Society
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 20 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf