|
Schenk et al. [16]
|
RCT Split-mouth design
|
8 patients
|
PD >4 mm BOP on at least 1 site per implant ± mucosal hyperplasia no radiographic bone loss
|
3 months
|
Supra-/subgingival scaling (steel curettes) + polishing (rubber cup) + locally delivered tetracycline HCl (25 %) fibre for 10 days +0.2 % CHX mouthrinse twice for 10 days
|
Supra-/subgingival scaling (steel curettes) + polishing (rubber cup) + +0.2 % CHX mouthrinse twice for 10 days
|
ΔBOP (3 months, subject level)
|
| | |
24 implants
| | | | |
Test: −17 ± 25 %
|
| | |
1 implant type (endossous part: titanium and zirconoxide/transmucosal part: titanium oxinitride)
| | | | |
Control: 15 ± 37 %
|
| | | | | | | |
PD/CAL values without significant changes in both groups
|
| | | | | | | |
No adverse events
|
| | | | | | | |
Partial/complete fibre loss at three sites
|
|
Hallström et al. [19]
|
RCT, parallel
|
45 patients
|
PD ≥4 mm BOP + and/or pus
|
6 months
|
OHI + mechanical cleansing (titanium curettes + rubber cups + polishing paste) + Azithromycin® 500 mg day 1 and 250 mg days 2–4
|
OHI + mechanical cleansing (titanium curettes + rubber cups + polishing paste)
|
Test
|
| | |
3 implant systems
|
Radiographic bone loss ≤2 mm
| | | |
BOP: 82.6 (24.4) (BL) to 27.3 (18.8) % (6 months, subject level)
|
| | | | | | | |
PD at worst site: 5.5 (0.8) (BL) to 4.1 (1.2) mm (6 months, subject level)
|
| | | | | | | |
Control
|
| | | | | | | |
BOP: 80.0 (25.0) (BL) to 47.5 (32.3) % (6 months, subject level)
|
| | | | | | | |
PD at worst site: 5.7 (0.8) (BL) to 4.9 (1.1) mm (6 months, subject level)
|
| | | | | | | |
Odds ratio of a positive treatment outcome (PD ≤ 4.0 mm and BOP ≤ 1) was 4.5:1 (test vs. control)
|
| | | | | | | |
Comparable reductions in bacterial counts
|
