Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 4, 2016

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 2 | Issue 4/2016 57 S u r g i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f p e r i i m p l a n t i t i s Figs. 1a & b Figs. 2a–d a b maintenance care program. Motivation, rein- forcement of oral hygiene instruction, supragin- gival instrumentation and antiseptic therapy were performed as needed All of the patients were subsequently recalled every three months for data collection and maintenance therapy. Nonsurgical treatment with ultrasound plastic instruments and air polishing and erythritol powder was repeated every three months throughout the entire follow-up period (Fig. 3). C l i n i c a l a n a l y s i s All of the clinical analysis were performed by a single trained clinician using a predefined stan- dard protocol. The following clinical variables were assessed at six and 12 months with the aid of a periodontal probe with a millimeter scale (Hawe Neos Probe 1395, Hawe, London, U.K.): – plaque index; – bleeding on probing, evaluated as present if bleedingwas evidentwithin 30 s afterprobing or absent if no bleeding was observed within 30 s after probing; – probing depth, measured from the mucosal margin to the bottom of the examined pocket; – mucosalrecession,measuredfromtheimplant shoulder or restoration margin to the mucosal margin; and – clinical attachment level, measured from the implant neck to the deepest point of the periimplant pocket. Probing depth, mucosal recession and clinical attachment level scores were recorded to the nearest millimeter at six aspects per implant. R a d i o g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s Radiographic changes (bone gain or loss) were evaluated using periapical radiographs obtained at baseline and at six and 12 months using par- alleling rings and silicone bites to reproduce the exact film position. Periimplant marginal bone changes were evaluated with a computerized measuring technique applied to digital radio- graphs. The distance from the mesial and distal margin of the implant neck to the most coronal point where the bone appeared to be in contact with the implant was measured. Evaluation of the marginalbone levelaroundthe implantswas performed using image analysis software (Scion Image for Windows, Version 4.02, Scion Corp., Frederick, Md., U.S.) able to compensate for radiographic distortion.The software calculated bone remodeling atthe mesialand distalaspects of the implants. The mean of both values was used. Figs. 1a & b Preoperative radiograph and (b) intraoperative measure- ment of the bony defect. Figs. 2a–d Surgical phases: (a) degranula- tion of the defect, (b) autogenous bone graft apposition, (c) easy-graft apposition and (d) primary intention flap suturing. a b c d Volume 2 | Issue 4/201657

Pages Overview