Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Electrolytic Implant Surface Decontamination in Peri-Implantitis Surgery: A...

Background: To compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of electrolytic versus conventional mechanical implant surface decontamination during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 20 implants affected by peri-implantitis in 20 patients. Ten implants were treated using electrolytic implant surface decontamination, while 10 implants received conventional mechanical decontamination with titanium curettes, chitosan brushes, and glycine powder air-polishing. In addition, regenerative therapy of the peri-implant defect was performed in 8 of the 20 treated sites, equally distributed between the two groups (4 sites per group). Clinical and radiographic parameters, including probing depth (PD) and radiographic bone loss, were assessed at baseline and after 6 months. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were performed using parametric statistical analyses (α = 0.05). Results: Both treatment protocols resulted in statistically significant improvements in probing depth reduction and radiographic bone fill after 6 months (p < 0.001). In the electrolytic group, mean PD decreased from 6.7 ± 0.95 mm to 4.0 ± 0.2 mm, while in the conventional group, PD decreased from 6.8 ± 1.03 mm to 3.3 ± 0.3 mm. Radiographic bone loss decreased from 4.88 ± 0.70 mm to 0.94 ± 0.70 mm in the electrolytic group and from 4.88 ± 1.83 mm to 0.94 ± 1.14 mm in the conventional group. No statistically significant intergroup differences were observed for probing depth reduction or radiographic bone level changes. No implant losses occurred during the observation period. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this retrospective study, both electrolytic and conventional mechanical implant surface decontamination protocols resulted in significant short-term clinical and radiographic improvements following peri-implantitis surgery. Electrolytic cleaning demonstrated outcomes comparable to conventional therapy and may represent a viable alternative for implant surface decontamination.