OBJECTIVE: Various methods have been proposed to achieve the nearly complete decontamination of the surface of implants affected by peri-implantitis. We investigated the in vitro debridement efficiency of multiple decontamination methods (Gracey curettes [GC], glycine air-polishing [G-Air], erythritol air-polishing [E-Air] and titanium brushes [TiB]) using a novel spectrophotometric ink-model in 3 different bone defect settings (30°, 60°, and 90°).
METHODS: Forty-five dental implants were stained with indelible ink and mounted in resin models, which simulated standardised peri-implantitis defects with different bone defect angulations (30°, 60°, and 90°). After each run of instrumentation, the implants were removed from the resin model, and the ink was dissolved in ethanol (97%). A spectrophotometric analysis was performed to detect colour remnants in order to measure the cumulative uncleaned surface area of the implants. Scanning electron microscopy images were taken to assess micromorphological surface changes.
RESULTS: Generally, the 60° bone defects were the easiest to debride, and the 30° defects were the most difficult (ink absorption peak: 0.26±0.04 for 60° defects; 0.32±0.06 for 30° defects; 0.27±0.04 for 90° defects). The most effective debridement method was TiB, independently of the bone defect type (TiB vs. GC: P<0.0001; TiB vs. G-Air: P=0.0017; TiB vs. GE-Air: P=0.0007). GE-Air appeared to be the least efficient method for biofilm debridement.
CONCLUSIONS: T-brushes seem to be a promising decontamination method compared to the other techniques, whereas G-Air was less aggressive on the implant surface. The use of a spectrophotometric model was shown to be a novel but promising assessment method for in vitro ink studies.

Complete reosseointegration after treatment of periimplantitis was never published yet. This short scientific communication reports about results of a randomized controlled preclinical study. An electrolytic approach was compared to a classical modality (ablative, cotton pellets soaked with sodium chloride solution and H2O2. For electrolytic cleaning a complete reosseointegration was achieved in several cases serving as a proof of concept.

OBJECTIVE: The present randomized clinical trial assesses the six-month outcomes following surgical regenerative therapy of periimplantitis lesions using either an electrolytic method (EC) to remove biofilms or a combination of powder spray and electrolytic method (PEC).
METHODS: 24 patients with 24 implants suffering from peri-implantitis with any type of bone defect were randomly treated by EC or PEC. Bone defects were augmented with a mixture of natural bone mineral and autogenous bone and left for submerged healing. The distance from implant shoulder to bone was assessed at six defined points at baseline (T0) and after six months at uncovering surgery (T1) by periodontal probe and standardized x-rays.
RESULTS: One implant had to be removed at T1 because of reinfection and other obstacles. None of the other implants showed signs of inflammation. Bone gain was 2.71 ± 1.70 mm for EC and 2.81 ± 2.15 mm for PEC. No statistically significant difference between EC and PEC was detected. Significant clinical bone fill was observed for all 24 implants. Complete regeneration of bone was achieved in 12 implants. Defect morphology impacted the amount of regeneration.
CONCLUSIONS: EC needs no further mechanical cleaning by powder spray. Complete re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis cases is possible.