uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg. Umea Univ, Dept Mol Periodontol, Umea, Sweden;Gavle Cty Hosp, Publ Dent Hlth Cty Council Gavleborg, Dept Periodontol, Gavle, Sweden.
Orebro Univ, Postgrad Dent Educ Ctr, Orebro, Sweden;Orebro Univ, Sch Hlth & Med Sci, Orebro, Sweden.
Umea Univ, Dept Mol Periodontol, Umea, Sweden;Gavle Cty Hosp, Publ Dent Hlth Cty Council Gavleborg, Dept Periodontol, Gavle, Sweden.
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Medicinska och farmaceutiska vetenskapsområdet, centrumbildningar mm, Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg.
2018 (English)In: Journal of Clinical Periodontology, ISSN 0303-6979, E-ISSN 1600-051X, Vol. 45, no 6, p. 744-753Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes 3 and 5years 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 analysed in 18 and 14 patients at the 3- and 5-year follow-up, respectively. Results: After exclusion of four 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 nine 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 5 years, but larger studies are needed.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 45, no 6, p. 744-753
Keywords [en]
bone regeneration, enamel matrix derivative, long-term outcome, peri-implantitis, surgical treatment
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-357699DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12894ISI: 000434128500011PubMedID: 29574866OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-357699DiVA, id: diva2:1240563
Available from: 2018-08-21 Created: 2018-08-21 Last updated: 2018-08-21Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Holmlund, Anders

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Holmlund, Anders
By organisation
Centre for Research and Development, Gävleborg
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: 29 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • 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