The purpose of the present study is to compare the 1-year clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes and patients' satisfaction following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis after applying two different surface modification methods. Secondarily, analysis and comparison of the microbiological results of implants diagnosed and treated for peri-implantitis with healthy implants will be performed.
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Treatment success as described by the composite outcome of probing pocket depth (PPD) ≤5 mm, absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and/or suppuration and bone loss ≤0.5 mm between week 2 and 12 months post-surgery, at 12-month examination post-surgery
Timeframe: 12 months post-surgery
Mean total colony forming units (CFU) counts of the bacterial species under study in targeted implants with peri-implantitis from Baseline to Week 6 after non-surgical therapy
Timeframe: Baseline, Week 6 after non-surgical therapy
Mean total colony forming units (CFU) counts of the bacterial species under study in targeted implants with peri-implantitis from Baseline to 12 months after surgical therapy
Timeframe: Baseline, 3 months post-surgery, 6 months post-surgery, 12 months post-surgery
Mean total colony forming units (CFU) counts of the bacterial species under study in targeted implants of the control group from Baseline to 12 months follow-up visit
Timeframe: Baseline, 3 months follow-up visit, 6 months follow-up visit, 12 months follow-up visit
Yiorgos A. Bobetsis, Assistant Professor