Aim
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in the treatment of peri‑implantitis among waterpipe smokers (WPS) and non-smokers with peri‑implantitis MATERIAL AND
Conclusion
aPDT adjunctive to MD improved periodontal parameters i.e., plaque index, pocket depth, and crestal bone loss along with metabolic marker RANK-L in water pipe smokers compared to non piped smokers.
Material and methods
Participants were stratified into two groups. Group 1: Subjects who smoked water pipes for the last 2 years with peri‑implant disease were treated with aPDT adjunct to MD and group 2: Participants who did not use water pipes in the last 2 years but have periimplantitis (controls) were treated with MD only. Participants were scrutinized with peri‑implantitis (PI) in one dental implant at least based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using structured questionnaire information was gathered from participants. All participants underwent mechanical debridement (MD). Participants of WPS underwent antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Peri implant inflammatory parameters (PI, BI, PD, and CBL) were assessed in all participant at baseline, 3 months and 6 months follow-up. Periimplant sulcular fluid was collected for assessment of bone metabolic biomarkers RANK-L and OPG. For immunological and clinical peri‑implant parameters analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. For multiple comparisons, Bonferroni post hoc test was deployed.
Methods
Participants were stratified into two groups. Group 1: Subjects who smoked water pipes for the last 2 years with peri‑implant disease were treated with aPDT adjunct to MD and group 2: Participants who did not use water pipes in the last 2 years but have periimplantitis (controls) were treated with MD only. Participants were scrutinized with peri‑implantitis (PI) in one dental implant at least based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using structured questionnaire information was gathered from participants. All participants underwent mechanical debridement (MD). Participants of WPS underwent antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Peri implant inflammatory parameters (PI, BI, PD, and CBL) were assessed in all participant at baseline, 3 months and 6 months follow-up. Periimplant sulcular fluid was collected for assessment of bone metabolic biomarkers RANK-L and OPG. For immunological and clinical peri‑implant parameters analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. For multiple comparisons, Bonferroni post hoc test was deployed.
Results
Clinical periodontal parameters at baseline were significantly different in the control group PI (49.8 ± 10.5), BI(46.8 ± 7.7), and PD (5.0 ± 1.8) compared to WPS PI (56.1 ± 12.0), BI (40.9 ± 8.3), and PD (5.6 ± 1.5) (p < 0.05). At 3 months follow-up after PDT, PI (19.1 ± 7.7) and PD (3.9 ± 1.4) were significantly lower in the control group compared to WPS group PI (23.5 ± 8.4) and PD (4.5 ± 1.2) (p < 0.05). Whereas, BI of control (16.3 ± 6.8) and WPS group (17.1 ± 5.3) at 3 months follow-up was comparable (p > 0.05). At six months follow up following PDT, PI (15.7 ± 5.5) and PD (3.4 ± 1.2) was significantly lower in the control group compared to participants with water piped users PI (18.6 ± 7.4) and PD (3.9 ± 1.3) (p < 0.05). No significant difference was noted in BI in both groups (p > 0.05). Participants treated with PDT adjunct to MD demonstrated significantly reduced mean RANK-L levels at both 3 and 6 months (p<0.05).