The international journal of high impact in dentistry Journal of Clinical Periodontology, echoes one of the latest studies conducted by ThinkingPerio Research, Arrow Development & Clínica Ortiz-Vigón. The study analyzed the case of 43 patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis (bone loss around implants) and the results obtained shed light on the benefits or otherwise of the use of resorbable membranes during the treatment proposed to reconstruct the lost bone.
The publication focuses on the treatment of peri-implantitis, a reversible pathology that affects between 30 and 70% of patients with implants. This disease involves in its first phase the inflammation of the mucosa around an implant. If the inflammation is not controlled, there is a high risk of triggering a progressive loss of bone and, if it progresses, it could lead to the loss of the implant itself, in addition to a considerable infection. This is why it is so important to know the best way to treat the disease in order to avoid this loss of the implant. Bone loss around teeth is easier to control than around implants. It is necessary to point out that teeth, being a natural element, have defenses and in any situation of bacterial aggression there will be a response from the body. While implants, being artificial elements, do not have defenses and that is why infection can occur faster and in a more dangerous way. In addition, this type of situations around the implants do not hurt until they are advanced and consequently it is essential to go to periodic revisions and maintenance.
In relation to this, a previous international study in which the doctors also collaborated, talks about the use of bone grafts for the reconstruction of bone defects around implants. In this study, the advantages of using this type of bone grafts to stop the disease in the implants and rebuild the bone were appreciated. However, now, this new study led by Drs. Erik Regidor and Alberto Ortiz-Vigón, investigates whether the additional use of a barrier membrane covering the bone graft is better than simply using the bone graft.
Forty-three subjects were included at the start of the study. Most of the group was composed of women with a mean age of 61 years. According to Dr. Regidor the results indicated that the additional use of the barrier membrane covering the bone graft did not lead to any additional clinical improvement compared to the exclusive use of the bone graft. Nor were differences seen at the radiographic level or in patient satisfaction assessed 12 months postoperatively. “Rather, longer treatment times and more postoperative complications, such as higher postoperative pain scores, were observed in the test group,” he adds. Despite this, patient satisfaction was high, regardless of treatment group.
Thus, this study has failed to demonstrate any additional clinical or radiographic benefit from the use of a barrier membrane covering the bone graft as part of reconstructive surgical therapy for peri-implantitis. However, a higher rate of postoperative complications and postoperative pain, as well as longer operative times were observed when a membrane was used. These results will make it possible to identify which method may be more suitable for this type of treatment in order to avoid possible complications and make the postoperative process easier for the patient.