Gazi University Dentistry Faculty
Ankara, Turkey (Türkiye)
NCT Number: NCT06730568
Peri-implantitis is a biofilm-associated pathological condition characterized by inflammation within the peri-implant mucosa, which leads to the progressive loss of the surrounding supporting bone tissue. The primary goal of managing peri-implantitis is to control the peri-implant biofilm and resolve inflammation. Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis by submarginal mechanical instrumentation alone typically provides clinical improvements, particularly in non-advanced cases. However, to ensure surface decontamination and enhance treatment outcomes, alternative or adjunctive methods, such as systemic/local antibiotics, antiseptics, lasers, and air-abrasion systems, have been proposed.
Therefore, the null hypothesis (H0) of the present study is that no statistically significant difference would be detected in clinical inflammation signs among patients diagnosed with early-stage peri-implantitis after undergoing one of the following treatments: nonsurgical mechanical instrumentation alone, mechanical instrumentation plus chlorhexidine (CHX), mechanical instrumentation plus gaseous ozone, mechanical instrumentation plus glycine air polishing, or glycine air polishing alone.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Ankara, Turkey (Türkiye)
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Local anesthesia was applied before the procedure. The operator performed submarginal mechanical debridement until the implant surface was deemed adequately cleaned. No adjunctive therapies were applied in this group.
The participants in the mechanical instrumentation with chlorhexidine (MC) group were treated with conventional submarginal instrumentation using titanium curettes. Local anesthesia was applied before the procedure. The operator performed submarginal mechanical debridement until the implant surface was deemed adequately cleaned. Following mechanical instrumentation, the peri-implant pockets were irrigated with 0.2% chlorhexidine digluconate solution for 1 minute.
The participants in the mechanical instrumentation with ozone (MO) group were treated with conventional submarginal instrumentation using titanium curettes. Local anesthesia was applied before the procedure. The operator performed submarginal mechanical debridement until the implant surface was deemed adequately cleaned. Following mechanical instrumentation, gaseous ozone was applied to the peri-implant pockets using an ozone-generating device and a specialized glass fiber probe. The ozone gas was delivered to four sites (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual) for 15 seconds per site, resulting in a total application time of 1 minute per implant. The device operated at a power of 3 watts and 80% oxygen concentration, as recommended by the manufacturer.
The participants in the mechanical instrumentation with glycine powder air abrasion (MA) group were treated with conventional submarginal instrumentation using titanium curettes. Local anesthesia was applied before the procedure. The operator performed submarginal mechanical debridement until the implant surface was deemed adequately cleaned. Following mechanical instrumentation, the peri-implant pockets were treated with glycine powder-based air abrasion using an air-abrasion device (AIR-FLOW® handy 3.0 PERIO HANDPIECE, EMS, Nyon, Switzerland) and a flexible Perio-Flow® nozzle. The nozzle was inserted into the pockets and guided in a circular motion from coronal to apical, parallel to the implant surface, in a non-contact mode as recommended by the manufacturer. The air-abrasion treatment was applied to four sites (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual) for 5 seconds per site, resulting in a total application time of 20 seconds per implant.
The participants in the glycine powder air abrasion monotherapy (A) group were treated exclusively with glycine powder-based air abrasion. Local anesthesia was applied before the procedure. The peri-implant pockets were instrumented with an air-abrasion device using glycine powder and a flexible nozzle. The nozzle was inserted into the pockets and guided in a circular motion from coronal to apical, parallel to the implant surface, in a non-contact mode as recommended by the manufacturer. The air-abrasion treatment was applied to four sites (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual) for 5 seconds per site, resulting in a total application time of 20 seconds per implant. .
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after treatment
Yeditepe University
Other
Effect of Different Non-surgical Treatment Approaches of Peri-implantitis: a Multi-arm Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
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.
NCT07300657
Digestive System Diseases, Gastroenteritis
Catania, Italy
View Trial DetailsNCT01878071
Body Weight, Mouth Diseases
Iowa City, Iowa, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07287956
Mouth Diseases, Peri-Implantitis
Irbid, Alabama, Jordan
View Trial DetailsNCT06867250
Mouth Diseases, Peri-Implantitis
Istanbul, BAKIRKOy, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial Details