Lack of Clinical Benefit of Implantoplasty to Improve Implant Survival Rate

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare postsurgical outcomes of resective treatment for peri-implantitis with and without implant surface modification (implantoplasty [IP]). This was accomplished by a retrospective analysis with data from patients with ≥1 implant who were surgically treated for peri-implantitis by resective therapy. Patients were divided into 2 groups regarding treatment approach: IP (test) and no IP (control). Retrospective data were obtained after implant placement (T0) and the day of peri-implantitis surgical treatment (T1). Patients were then recalled (≥1 y after T1) for clinical and radiographic examination (T2). The findings were conclusive. A total of 41 patients (68 implants; mean ± SD follow-up, 41.6 ± 24.4 mo) were included in this study. The survival rate at the implant level was 90% in the test group and 81.6% in the control group (P > 0.05). Multilevel regression analysis showed that the probability of implant failure was influenced by marginal bone loss (MBL) at T1 and not surgical modality. For example, peri-implantitis defects ≥50% and 25% to 50% MBL were 18.6 and 8.86 times more likely to lose the implant, respectively, when compared with <25% MBL. Nonetheless, MBL changes were similar in the test and control groups (P = 0.592). Similarly, changes in bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, and suppuration at T2 did not differ between groups (P > 0.05). Multilevel regression analysis indicated that clinical improvement of these parameters was influenced by the number of supportive peri-implant therapy visits (P < 0.01). The results demonstrate little difference between the procedures. Regardless of the implant surface modification (IP) being performed or not, the survival rate of implants treated for peri-implantitis was primarily influenced by the amount of bone loss at the time of treatment. Other clinical parameters (MBL, probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration) were influenced by the frequency of supportive peri-implant therapy visits and not by the IP procedure (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04259840).