oru.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using enamel matrix derivative, an RCT: 3- and 5-year follow-up
Umeå University, Department of Molecular Periodontology, Umeå, Sweden; Gävle County Hospital, Department of Periodontology, Public Dental Health County Council of Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden; Center for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
Örebro University, School of Medical Sciences. Postgraduate Dental Education Center, Region Örebro County, Örebro, Sweden.
Umeå University, Department of Molecular Periodontology,, Umeå, Sweden.
Gävle County Hospital, Department of Periodontology, Public Dental Health County Council of Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden; Center for Research and Development, Uppsala University/Region Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
2018 (English)In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, ISSN 0303-6979, E-ISSN 1600-051XArticle in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes 3 and 5 years after the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis per se or in combination with an enamel matrix derivative (EMD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: At baseline, 29 patients were randomized to surgical treatment with adjunctive EMD or no EMD. One year after the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, 25 patients remained eligible for survival analyses at the 3- and 5-year follow-up. The primary outcomes were implant loss and bone level (BL) change measured on radiographs, and the secondary outcomes, bleeding on probing, pus and plaque at each implant, were analyzed in 18 and14 patients at the 3- and 5-year follow-up, respectively.

RESULTS: After exclusion of 4 patients who discontinued the study, at the 3-year follow-up, 13 (100%) implants survived in the EMD group, and 10 of 12 (83%) in the non-EMD group. At the 5-year follow-up, 11 of 13 (85%) implants in the EMD group and 9 of 12 (75%) in the non-EMD group survived. In multivariate modelling, BL changes and EMD-treatment were positively associated with implant survival. Similarly, the same trend was seen in univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS: An exploratory analysis suggests that adjunctive EMD is positively associated with implant survival up to five years, but larger studies are needed. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Wiley-Blackwell, 2018.
Keyword [en]
Bone regeneration, enamel matrix derivative, long-term outcome, peri-implantitis, surgical treatment
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-66455DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12894PubMedID: 29574866OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-66455DiVA, id: diva2:1198253
Available from: 2018-04-17 Created: 2018-04-17 Last updated: 2018-04-17Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Svensson, Björn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Svensson, Björn
By organisation
School of Medical Sciences
In the same journal
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 12 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf