IADR Abstract Archives
Application of Air Polishing in Treatment of Peri-implant Mucositis
Objectives: To investigate the clinical efficacy of Erythritol Powder Air Polishing (EPAP) therapy in management of peri-implant mucositis.
Methods: This is a single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the short-term clinical efficacy of implant surface debridement with EPAP (test) and carbon fiber curette (control) in managing peri-implant mucositis. Patient-reported intra-operative discomfort was also recorded. 33 Patients who had received implant therapy at the Periodontology Clinic, Prince Philip Dental Hospital were recruited. Clinical parameters (FMPS, FMBS, mPlI, mBI, PPD and CAL) were recorded at baseline. Subjects diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis were randomly assigned to test or control therapy. Patient’s perception of experience was investigated by 100mm VAS questionnaires after therapy. Chairside treatment time was also recorded. Clinical measurements were repeated at the 4th week. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the VAS and chairside time required between groups.
Results: 31 Subjects have completed the study (17 tests and 14 controls). No statistically significant differences were detected in FMPS, FMBS, implant PPD and CAL between groups at baseline and the 4th week. At site level, no statistically significant differences could be detected in the reduction of mBI between the two groups. Subjects who had received EPAP reported lower VAS relating to the degree of gum pain (Mean: 18.8mm vs 35.1mm), anxiousness (Median: 9mm vs 24mm) and the overall severity of pain and discomfort (Median: 4mm vs 22mm) during treatment (p<0.05). Significantly less chairside time in treating peri-implant mucositis with test therapy was also recorded (Median: 52s vs 112s) (p<0.05).
Conclusions: EPAP is likely performing as effectively as conventional therapy in managing peri-implant mucositis, with the advantages of improvement of overall patients’ comfort and reduction of treatment time, although the conclusion is limited by the small sample size in this preliminary study.
Methods: This is a single-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial comparing the short-term clinical efficacy of implant surface debridement with EPAP (test) and carbon fiber curette (control) in managing peri-implant mucositis. Patient-reported intra-operative discomfort was also recorded. 33 Patients who had received implant therapy at the Periodontology Clinic, Prince Philip Dental Hospital were recruited. Clinical parameters (FMPS, FMBS, mPlI, mBI, PPD and CAL) were recorded at baseline. Subjects diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis were randomly assigned to test or control therapy. Patient’s perception of experience was investigated by 100mm VAS questionnaires after therapy. Chairside treatment time was also recorded. Clinical measurements were repeated at the 4th week. Independent t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare the VAS and chairside time required between groups.
Results: 31 Subjects have completed the study (17 tests and 14 controls). No statistically significant differences were detected in FMPS, FMBS, implant PPD and CAL between groups at baseline and the 4th week. At site level, no statistically significant differences could be detected in the reduction of mBI between the two groups. Subjects who had received EPAP reported lower VAS relating to the degree of gum pain (Mean: 18.8mm vs 35.1mm), anxiousness (Median: 9mm vs 24mm) and the overall severity of pain and discomfort (Median: 4mm vs 22mm) during treatment (p<0.05). Significantly less chairside time in treating peri-implant mucositis with test therapy was also recorded (Median: 52s vs 112s) (p<0.05).
Conclusions: EPAP is likely performing as effectively as conventional therapy in managing peri-implant mucositis, with the advantages of improvement of overall patients’ comfort and reduction of treatment time, although the conclusion is limited by the small sample size in this preliminary study.