Optimization of the supporting periodontal therapy at patients of risk group with dental implants
https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-4-309-314
Abstract
Relevance. Against the background of an increase in the number of established dental implants, there is an increase in the number of cases of inflammation of the surrounding tissues – mucositis and periimplantitis, which occupy the first place among all complications of dental implantation.
Materials and methods. To assess the effectiveness of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), depending on the method individual hygiene of an oral cavity (IHOC) and professional hygiene of an oral cavity (PHOC), 85 patients aged 24-52 with primary and moderate generalized periodontitis in remission with dental implants examined. SPT for patients in the first and third groups was conducted under the Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) protocol, the II group – according to the “classic” protocol. In the first group, patients brushed their teeth with a manual toothbrush (TB) in the II group – power toothbrush with oscillating-rotating movements (Oral-B Vitality), in the III group – power toothbrush with technology of rotational-return movements with pulsation and feedback by means of a mobile application (Oral-B Genius). Indices were evaluated: Silness-Loe (S-L), API, PBI, PMA, pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), duration of ongoing manipulations, two questionnaires of patients in the dynamics.
Results. With comparable baseline data, there was no negative dynamics in the second group, and in the first and third – positive dynamics throughout the observation period, with statistically significant superiority in the third group. Lower time costs of the doctor, a more comfortable perception of the patient of the procedure itself and the absence of hyperesthesia after it are noted in GBT groups.
Conclusion. The SPT complex, which includes GBT and the use of a power toothbrush with the technology of rotationalreturn movements with pulsation and feedback, shows high clinical efficacy in patients at risk with dental implants.
Materials and methods. To assess the effectiveness of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), depending on the method individual hygiene of an oral cavity (IHOC) and professional hygiene of an oral cavity (PHOC), 85 patients aged 24-52 with primary and moderate generalized periodontitis in remission with dental implants examined. SPT for patients in the first and third groups was conducted under the Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) protocol, the II group – according to the “classic” protocol. In the first group, patients brushed their teeth with a manual toothbrush (TB) in the II group – power toothbrush with oscillating-rotating movements (Oral-B Vitality), in the III group – power toothbrush with technology of rotational-return movements with pulsation and feedback by means of a mobile application (Oral-B Genius). Indices were evaluated: Silness-Loe (S-L), API, PBI, PMA, pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), duration of ongoing manipulations, two questionnaires of patients in the dynamics.
Results. With comparable baseline data, there was no negative dynamics in the second group, and in the first and third – positive dynamics throughout the observation period, with statistically significant superiority in the third group. Lower time costs of the doctor, a more comfortable perception of the patient of the procedure itself and the absence of hyperesthesia after it are noted in GBT groups.
Conclusion. The SPT complex, which includes GBT and the use of a power toothbrush with the technology of rotationalreturn movements with pulsation and feedback, shows high clinical efficacy in patients at risk with dental implants.
About the Authors
O. A. Gulyaeva
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Bashkir State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD, associate Professor of the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery with the courses of Institute of additional professional education
Ufa
S. V. Averyanov
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Bashkir State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
DSc, professor, chief of the Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery with the courses of Institute of additional professional education
Ufa
B. A. Yakupov
Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education Bashkir State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dentist, Surgeon, Clinical Dental Clinic of Institute of additional professional education
Ufa
References
1. A. Mombelli, N. Müller, N. Cionca. The epidemiology of peri‐implantitis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2012;(Suppl.6)23:67-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02541.x.
2. S. Renvert, C. Lindahl, G. R. Persson. Occurrence of cases with peri‐implant mucositis or peri‐implantitis in a 21–26 years follow‐up study. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45:233-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12822.
3. A. Roos‐Jansаker, C. Lindahl, H. Renvert, S. Renvert. Nine‐ to fourteen‐year follow‐up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri‐implant lesions. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2006;3:290-295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2006.00906.x.
4. D. Hashim, N. Cionca, C. Combescure, A. Mombelli. The diagnosis of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review on the predictive value of bleeding on probing. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2018;29(Suppl. 16):276-293. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13127.
5. J. K. Stern, E. E. Hahn, C. I. Evian, J. Waasdorp, E. S. Rosenberg. Implant failure: prevalence, risk factors, management, and prevention. In Dental Implant Complications, S. J. Froum (Ed.). 2015. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119140474.ch8.
6. S. Renvert, I. Polyzois. Risk indicators for peri‐implant mucositis: a systematic literature review. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(Suppl.16):172-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12346.
7. H. R. Dalago, G. S. Filho, M. A. P. Rodrigues, S. Renvert, M. A. Bianchini. Risk Indicators for Peri‐implantitis. A cross‐sectional study with 916 implants. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2017;28:144-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12772.
8. L. J. Heitz-Mayfield, N. P. Lang. Comparative biology of chronic and aggressive periodontitis vs. peri-implantitis. Periodontol 2000. 2010;53:167-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.2010.00348.x.
9. S. H. Safii, R. M Palmer, R. F. Wilson. Risk of implant failure and marginal bone loss in subjects with history of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Impl D & Rel Res. 2010;12(3):165-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00162.x.
10. I. K. Karoussis, S. Müller, G. E. Salvi, L. J. Heitz‐Mayfield, U. Brägger, N. P. Lang. Association between periodontal and peri‐implant conditions: a 10‐year prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004;15:1-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00982.x.
11. S. Renvert, G. R. Persson. Periodontitis as a potential risk factor for peri‐implantitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2009;36:9-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01416.x.
12. V. Sousa, N. Mardas, B. Farias, A. Petrie, I. Needleman, D. Spratt, N. A. Donos. А Systematic review of implant outcomes in treated periodontitis patients. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 2016;27:787-844. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12684.
13. V. G. Atrushkevich, L. Yu. Orekhova, O. O. Yanushevich, E. Yu. Sokolova, E. S. Loboda. Optimization of terms of supportive periodontal therapy when using photoactivated disinfection. Parodontologiya. 2019;24(2):121-126. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-2-121-126.
14. A. Mombelli, F. Décaillet. The characteristics of biofilms in peri‐implant disease. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2011;38:203-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01666.x.
15. A. Mombelli, N.P. Lang. The diagnosis and treatment of peri‐implantitis. Periodontology 2000. 1998;17:63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1998.tb00124.x.
16. Yu. L. Vasiliev, M. E. Kolomiychenko, G. T. Nagin Results of the research of the major factors influencing a choice of means of oral cavity hygiene by the modern person. Stomatologija detskogo vozrasta i profilaktika. 2014;13:2(49):49-52. (In Russ.). Режим доступа: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=22263932.
17. S. N. Razumova, E. V. Velichko, S. N. Tikhonova, D. V. Serebrov, Yu. L. Vasiliev, E. V. Ivanova. Prevalence of dental caries and gingivitis among 1st and 2nd year dental students. Indo American Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2018;9:9270-9274. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1439275
18. L. Yu. Orekhova, O. V. Prokhorova, S. V. Kameneva, N. V. Kushchenko, Yu. S. Morozov Comparative evaluation of the effect of isolated different types of toothbrushes on the 3D parameters of the surface roughness of dental restorative materials Parodontologija. 2016;3(80):3-7. (In Russ.) Режим доступа: https://www.parodont.ru/jour/article/view/184.
19. V. G. Atrushkevich, L. Yu. Orehova, S. L. Blashkova. Evaluation of the effectiveness of electric toothbrushes in maintaining gum health (according to the results of an expert meeting on October 26, 2017, St. Petersburg) Parodontologija. 2018;21(3):3-7. (In Russ.) http://doi.org/10.25636/PMP.1.2018.3.16.
20. J. Caton, G. Armitage, T. Berglundh, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and periimplant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl20):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12935.
21. S. Renvert, A. Roos‐Jansåker, N. Claffey. Non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis: a literature review. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2008;35:305-315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01276.x.
22. N. Müller, R. Moëne, J.A. Cancela, A. Mombelli. Subgingival air‐polishing with erythritol during periodontal maintenance. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:883-889. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12289.
Review
For citations:
Gulyaeva OA, Averyanov SV, Yakupov BA. Optimization of the supporting periodontal therapy at patients of risk group with dental implants. Parodontologiya. 2019;24(4):309-314. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-4-309-314
Views:
727
Email this article 