Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021
Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis: a two-center 12-month randomized trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the effect of adjunctive diode laser application on peri-implant crevicular fluid biomarker levels: a randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Adjunctive effect of soft tissue grafting in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: clinical and radiographic outcomes from a preclinical canine experiment.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Mechanical Debridement for Treating Experimental Peri-Implantitis in Elderly Rats Receiving Oncological Dosages of Zoledronate.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Exploring New Horizons in Wound Healing: A Comprehensive Analysis.Recent advances in inflammation & allergy drug discovery · 2026Review
- Periodontal Endoscopy for Mechanical Debridement in the Non-Surgical Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Peri-Implantitis.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Peri-implant phenotype, calprotectin and MMP-8 levels in cases diagnosed with peri-implant disease.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Sustained Release of Salicylic Acid for Halting Peri-Implantitis Progression in Healthy and Hyperglycemic Systemic Conditions: A Gottingen Minipig Model.ACS biomaterials science & engineering · 2024Article
- Novel Flowchart Guiding the Non-Surgical and Surgical Management of Peri-Implant Complications: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- SEM Evaluation of Thermal Effects Produced by a 445 nm Laser on Implant Surfaces.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Outcome indicators of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a prospective case series analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Assessment of salivary alpha amylase and mucin-4 before and after non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis.International journal of implant dentistry · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis in a two-center randomized trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-five individuals with 63 implants with probing depth (PPD) ≥5mm, bleeding on probing (BOP), and radiographic bone loss ≥2mm were included. In the NST (30 implants), submucosal debridement was performed. In the ST (33 implants), a mucoperiosteal flap was raised and surfaces were decontaminated only by debridement as performed in NST. Clinical parameters and radiographs were compared at baseline and after 12 months. Means and standard errors were reported.
resultsPPD considering all implant sites reduced significantly in NST from 4.14±0.25 to 3.25±0.18mm. In ST, PPD also significantly changed (3.74±0.22 to 3.00±0.29mm). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. For deep sites (≥7mm), PPD was 7.82±0.20mm at baseline and reduced to 5.10±0.30mm in NST, while in ST group, it was 7.11±0.11mm and changed to 5.22±0.91mm (between-groups p value=0.51). BOP significantly reduced from ~60 to 35% of all sites in both groups, without significant differences between them. When sites with radiographic bone level ≥3mm at baseline were analyzed, there was a significant difference between groups in bone gain after 12 months in favor of ST (ST=0.78±0.30mm compared to NST=0.25mm±0.13; p=0.03).
conclusionsSurgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis present similar clinical outcomes. Bone levels were better improved in ST than NST for sites with higher initial bone loss. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The treatment of peri-implantitis is still a challenge in clinical practice, since less than half of affected implants achieve health after surgical or non-surgical debridement. Considering the lack of clinically relevant differences between these two treatments, non-surgical debridement should be considered the first therapeutic choice for peri-implantitis, mainly mild to moderate cases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.