Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 24, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Influence of Microtextured Implant Surfaces on Peri-implantitis and Its Treatment: A Preclinical Trial
Purpose:
The prevalence of peri-implantitis has increased significantly, forcing clinicians to search for ways to prevent it. Laser-microtextured surfaces promote soft tissue attachment and provide a tight seal around implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to examine the clinical, radiographic, and histologic features of ligature-induced peri-implantitis, as well as the effect of surgical treatment of these induced peri-implantitis lesions on laser-microtextured implants in a controlled animal model.
Materials And Methods:
Six mini-pigs (three males/three females) received 6 implants each (3 resorbable blast textured [RBT] implants and 3 laser-microtextured [LM] implants) in mandibular premolar sites, for a total of 36 implants. Two groups were identified based on the time point of sample analysis. After osseointegration was achieved, metal wire ligatures were placed and left for 12 weeks. Group 1 samples were then obtained, and group 2 samples received rescue therapy following a guided bone regeneration (GBR) protocol. Sample collection in group 2 was completed 12 weeks after the samples were submerged and treated. All samples were analyzed histologically and measurements were taken.
Results:
Four implants (three RBT, one LM) were lost at early time points because of implant instability. Interimplant distances and soft tissue thicknesses varied subtly between groups. More notable was the mean (± standard error of the mean) crestal bone loss (group 1: 1.860 ± 1.618 mm [LM] and 2.440 ± 2.691 mm [RBT]; group 2: 2.04 ± 1.613 mm [LM] and 3.00 ± 2.196 mm [RBT]) (P < .05), as demonstrated by a paired t test. Histologic pocket depth was also greater at RBT sites than at LM sites (4.448 ± 2.839 mm and 4.121 ± 2.251 mm, respectively, in group 1; and 3.537 ± 2.719 mm and 2.339 ± 1.852 mm, respectively [P < .005] in group 2).
Conclusion:
LM implants had less crestal bone loss and shallower histologic pocket depth compared with their RBT counterparts. Also, LM implants had higher bone fill when a rescue therapy (GBR) was performed.
