Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Moscow, 119021, Russia
NCT Number: NCT07500844
The goal of this clinical study is to compare the effectiveness of different methods for decontaminating dental implant surfaces in the treatment of peri-implantitis. The main question it aims to answer is:
Which combination of an antiseptic solution and an air-polishing powder is most effective for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis? Researchers will compare three different treatment combinations (Miramistin with sodium bicarbonate, chlorhexidine with erythritol, and Octenisept with glycine) in patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Participants will receive the combined treatment at intervals of 7-10 days for one month. The study will assess changes in probing depth, bleeding, and bone loss at 1 and 2.5 months after treatment to determine the most effective and balanced approach for preserving implant surfaces and promoting tissue healing.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me21 year–75 year
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Moscow, 119021, Russia
This is a prospective, interventional study involving 48 patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis.
Groups: Participants were allocated into three groups (n=16 per group) to receive one of three treatment combinations.
Group 1: Treatment with Miramistin solution (0.01%) and air-polishing with sodium bicarbonate powder.
Group 2: Treatment with Chlorhexidine solution (0.05%) and air-polishing with erythritol powder.
Group 3: Treatment with Octenisept solution and air-polishing with glycine powder.
Intervention: Each patient received the assigned combination treatment at intervals of 7-10 days over one month.
Outcome Measures: Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after the start of treatment:
Primary Clinical Outcomes: Changes in probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP).
Secondary Clinical Outcomes: Changes in plaque index (PLI), gingival index (GI), presence of suppuration, and radiographic bone loss (assessed via periapical radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)). The need for subsequent surgical intervention was also recorded.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Antiseptic solution (0.01%) used for irrigation of the peri-implant pocket.
Abrasive powder used for air-polishing debridement of the implant surface at a 45-degree angle
Antiseptic solution (0.05%) used for irrigation of the peri-implant pocket.
Abrasive powder used for air-polishing debridement of the implant surface at a 45-degree angle.
Antiseptic solution used for irrigation of the peri-implant pocket.
Abrasive powder used for air-polishing debridement of the implant surface at a 45-degree angle.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Probing depth measured in millimeters using a graduated periodontal probe (UNC-15) at six sites per implant: mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual. The mean probing depth per implant is calculated. A reduction in probing depth indicates treatment success.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Presence or absence of bleeding within 30 seconds after gentle probing at six sites per implant. The percentage of sites showing bleeding per implant is recorded. A decrease in bleeding on probing indicates improvement in peri-implant soft tissue health.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Plaque accumulation assessed using the Silness-Löe Plaque Index (0-3 scale) at six sites per implant. Mean PLI is calculated per implant.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Gingival inflammation assessed using the Löe-Silness Gingival Index (0-3 scale) at six sites per implant. Mean GI is calculated per implant.
Time frame: Baseline and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Vertical bone loss measured in millimeters from a fixed reference point (e.g., implant shoulder) to the most coronal bone-to-implant contact, assessed on periapical radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Time frame: From start of treatment through 2.5 months
Number and severity of adverse events related to the treatment, including post-operative pain, soft tissue irritation, allergic reactions, or any unexpected events.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, and 2.5 months after start of treatment
Presence or absence of suppuration (purulent exudate) after gentle probing. Reported as the percentage of sites with suppuration per implant.
Time frame: From start of treatment through 2.5 months
Number and severity of adverse events related to the treatment, including post-operative pain, soft tissue irritation, allergic reactions, or any unexpected events.
Research Centre for Medical Genetics, Russian Federation
Other Gov
Treatment of Peri-implantitis by Air-polishing Abrasives and Antiseptics Solutions
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT06083246
Mouth Diseases, Peri-Implantitis
Pavia, Lombardy, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT05024760
Dental Implant Failed, Implant Infection
Tacoma, Washington, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07700628
Mouth Diseases, Peri-Implantitis
Caserta, CE, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT07678892
Mouth Diseases, Peri-Implantitis
Kristianstad, Sweden
View Trial Details