非手术治疗后种植体周围炎的重建治疗:一项随机对照试验

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Maria Costanza Soldini, Ramón Pons, José Nart, Alberto Monje, Neus Carrió, Cristina Valles
{"title":"非手术治疗后种植体周围炎的重建治疗:一项随机对照试验","authors":"Maria Costanza Soldini,&nbsp;Ramón Pons,&nbsp;José Nart,&nbsp;Alberto Monje,&nbsp;Neus Carrió,&nbsp;Cristina Valles","doi":"10.1111/cid.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-surgical treatment followed by either reconstructive therapy or supportive care with no further surgical measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis intra-bony defects.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This randomized clinical trial included patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony defects (≥ 3 mm). All 36 patients received a standardized peri-implant non-surgical therapy. Patients who did not demonstrate disease resolution based on clinical and radiographic re-evaluation were randomized into two groups. The test group received reconstructive therapy [reconstructive group (RG)] while the control group received no additional treatment except supportive care every 3 months [non-reconstructive group (NRG)]. The primary outcome was the mean radiographic bone change at 12 months; the difference between groups was assessed using Mann–Whitney two-sample tests. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at the initial examination and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Also, patient-reported outcomes were assessed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Overall, 34 patients (implants = 34) completed the study. Both therapies resulted in significant clinical and radiographic changes after 12 months. Disease resolution was achieved in 8 (44.4%) NRG patients and 7 (43.8%) RG patients (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05) with no significant differences between groups. The groups displayed no significant differences in clinical variables, but radiographic bone fill was ~3× greater in the RG group at 12 months [1.21 (SD 0.92) mm versus 0.36 (SD 0.59) mm], demonstrating statistical significance between the tested groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The tested therapeutic modalities demonstrated equal disease resolution. Nevertheless, the marginal bone level gain was significantly greater for sites subjected to reconstructive surgical therapy (NCT05168891—This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconstructive Therapy of Peri-Implantitis Following Non-Surgical Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Maria Costanza Soldini,&nbsp;Ramón Pons,&nbsp;José Nart,&nbsp;Alberto Monje,&nbsp;Neus Carrió,&nbsp;Cristina Valles\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.70024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-surgical treatment followed by either reconstructive therapy or supportive care with no further surgical measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis intra-bony defects.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>This randomized clinical trial included patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony defects (≥ 3 mm). All 36 patients received a standardized peri-implant non-surgical therapy. Patients who did not demonstrate disease resolution based on clinical and radiographic re-evaluation were randomized into two groups. The test group received reconstructive therapy [reconstructive group (RG)] while the control group received no additional treatment except supportive care every 3 months [non-reconstructive group (NRG)]. The primary outcome was the mean radiographic bone change at 12 months; the difference between groups was assessed using Mann–Whitney two-sample tests. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at the initial examination and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Also, patient-reported outcomes were assessed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Overall, 34 patients (implants = 34) completed the study. Both therapies resulted in significant clinical and radiographic changes after 12 months. Disease resolution was achieved in 8 (44.4%) NRG patients and 7 (43.8%) RG patients (<i>p</i> ≥ 0.05) with no significant differences between groups. The groups displayed no significant differences in clinical variables, but radiographic bone fill was ~3× greater in the RG group at 12 months [1.21 (SD 0.92) mm versus 0.36 (SD 0.59) mm], demonstrating statistical significance between the tested groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The tested therapeutic modalities demonstrated equal disease resolution. Nevertheless, the marginal bone level gain was significantly greater for sites subjected to reconstructive surgical therapy (NCT05168891—This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70024\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70024","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评价非手术治疗后再加重建治疗或支持治疗不加手术治疗种植体周围炎骨缺损的临床和影像学效果。材料和方法本随机临床试验纳入诊断为种植体周围炎且表现为骨内缺陷(≥3mm)的患者。所有36例患者均接受了标准化的种植体周围非手术治疗。基于临床和放射学重新评估未显示疾病消退的患者被随机分为两组。试验组接受重建治疗[重建组(reconstructive group, RG)],对照组除每3个月进行一次支持治疗外,不进行其他治疗[非重建组(non-reconstructive group, NRG)]。主要结果是12个月时的平均x线骨变化;采用Mann-Whitney双样本检验评估组间差异。在初始检查和3、6、12个月时记录临床和影像学参数。此外,还评估了患者报告的结果。结果总共有34例患者(种植体= 34)完成了研究。12个月后,两种治疗方法均有显著的临床和影像学改变。NRG患者8例(44.4%)、RG患者7例(43.8%)病情缓解,两组间差异无统计学意义(p≥0.05)。两组临床变量差异无统计学意义,但RG组12个月时x线骨填充量大3倍[1.21 (SD 0.92) mm对0.36 (SD 0.59) mm],两组间差异有统计学意义。结论经试验的治疗方式均能有效缓解疾病。然而,接受重建手术治疗的部位的边际骨水平增加明显更大(nct05168891 -该临床试验在参与者招募和随机化之前未注册)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconstructive Therapy of Peri-Implantitis Following Non-Surgical Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aim

To evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-surgical treatment followed by either reconstructive therapy or supportive care with no further surgical measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis intra-bony defects.

Materials and Methods

This randomized clinical trial included patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony defects (≥ 3 mm). All 36 patients received a standardized peri-implant non-surgical therapy. Patients who did not demonstrate disease resolution based on clinical and radiographic re-evaluation were randomized into two groups. The test group received reconstructive therapy [reconstructive group (RG)] while the control group received no additional treatment except supportive care every 3 months [non-reconstructive group (NRG)]. The primary outcome was the mean radiographic bone change at 12 months; the difference between groups was assessed using Mann–Whitney two-sample tests. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at the initial examination and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Also, patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

Results

Overall, 34 patients (implants = 34) completed the study. Both therapies resulted in significant clinical and radiographic changes after 12 months. Disease resolution was achieved in 8 (44.4%) NRG patients and 7 (43.8%) RG patients (p ≥ 0.05) with no significant differences between groups. The groups displayed no significant differences in clinical variables, but radiographic bone fill was ~3× greater in the RG group at 12 months [1.21 (SD 0.92) mm versus 0.36 (SD 0.59) mm], demonstrating statistical significance between the tested groups.

Conclusions

The tested therapeutic modalities demonstrated equal disease resolution. Nevertheless, the marginal bone level gain was significantly greater for sites subjected to reconstructive surgical therapy (NCT05168891—This clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
13.90%
发文量
103
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信