Trial reportClinical oral implants research2026
Impact of Oral Hygiene Instructions in the Resolution of Peri-Implant Mucositis. A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine whether oral hygiene instructions (OHI) alone can be effective in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized clinical trial with 56 PM patients was conducted. Participants were assigned to OHI (n = 28) or OHI + Mechanical Instrumentation (MI) (n = 28). Clinical [modified bleeding index (mBI), disease resolution] and microbiological parameters were assessed at baseline (T1), 1 month (T2), and 3 months (T3). Standardized periapical radiographs were taken at T1 and T3. Outcomes were analyzed at patient- and implant-level.
results48 patients with 118 implants were analyzed (52 in OHI; 66 in OHI + MI). At T3, success rates were 39.1% (OHI) and 56% (OHI + MI) at the patient level, and 36.4% (OHI) versus 67.3% (OHI + MI) at the implant level. Both groups showed a significant reduction in mBI (p < 0.001). Intergroup differences were not statistically significant, though greater divergence was noted at T3. At the patient level, higher FMPI/FMBI at 3 months predicted lower success (p < 0.05), whereas compliance improved outcomes (OR = 11.4, p = 0.004). At the implant level, failure was associated with OHI-only therapy, non-compliance, and higher mPI (all p = 0.001). History of periodontitis was a negative prognostic factor, linked to higher mBI at T3 (p = 0.010).
conclusionsOHI achieved resolution of PM in a considerable proportion of patients, particularly among compliant individuals. However, a history of periodontitis and posterior implant location negatively influenced outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of patient adherence and implant accessibility, while reaffirming the critical adjunctive role of MI in optimizing therapeutic success.
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.