[Treatment of peri-implant mucositis using an erythritol air-polishing or ultrasonic device: A randomized controlled...

To evaluate the short-term clinical treatment effects of erythritol air-polishing(EAP) and ultrasonic debridement (US) on peri-implant mucositis and to report patient-reported outcomes.

This study is a single-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial. It enrolled patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis at the Department of Periodontology, Peking University School of Stomatology between June 2021 and May 2022. A total of 36 patients (with one implant included per patient) were randomly allocated to either the EAP group (n=18) or the US group (n=18). Clinical parameters were collected at baseline, 1 month, and 3 months. The primary outcome was the change in peri-implant probing depth (PPD). Secondary outcomes included the modified plaque index (mPLI), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration on probing (SoP), and the visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain. As an exploratory analysis, the proportion of sites with PPD ≥ 4 mm was calculated. Oral hygiene instructions were reinforced, and the implant crown was polished at each visit.

Baseline clinical parameters were comparable between the EAP and US groups. Regarding the primary outcome of mean PPD, the EAP group showed a significant reduction from the baseline value (4.0±0.5) mm to (3.7±0.6) mm at 1 month and (3.4±0.5) mm at 3 months (P=0.011 and P < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, the US group showed a significant reduction from baseline (3.8±0.4) mm to (3.6±0.5) mm at 1 month and (3.5±0.4) mm at 3 months (P=0.038 and P=0.018, respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups (P>0.05). For the secondary outcomes, both groups showed significant improvement from baseline in mean mPLI (1 and 3 months, both P < 0.001) and BOP (1 month, P < 0.05; 3 months, P < 0.001). Pain VAS scores were low in both groups. However, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups for these three outcomes (all P>0.05). At 3 months, the proportion of sites with PPD ≥ 4 mm was significantly lower in EAP group than in US group [(42.6±26.1) % vs. (57.4±25.1) %, P=0.029]. No adverse events were reported.

Both EAP and US effectively treated peri-implant mucositis with comparable overall efficacy. However, EAP showed superior potential in reducing deep pockets over the short term, though this finding required further validation.