Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2018 Jun;22:132-136. doi: 10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.03.002. Epub 2018 Mar 15.

Effectiveness of adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in reducing peri-implant inflammatory response in individuals vaping electronic cigarettes: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Author information

1
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: malrifaiy@ksu.edu.sa.
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: oqutub@kau.edu.sa.
3
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: m.alasqah@psau.edu.sa.
4
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: alsowygh@ksu.edu.sa.
5
Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: smokeem@ksu.edu.sa.
6
Engineer Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair for Growth Factors and Bone Regeneration, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Electronic address: aalrahlah@ksu.edu.sa.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There are no studies that have assessed the effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in reducing peri-implant inflammatory response in individuals vaping electronic cigarettes (e-cigs). This study explored the effectiveness of aPDT as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (p-iM) in individuals vaping e-cigs.

METHODS:

Vaping individuals with p-iM were divided into 2 groups: (a) Group-I: receiving MD with aPDT (test group); and (b) Group-II: MD only (control group). Peri-implant inflammatory parameters including plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), and pocket depth (PD) were assessed at baseline and 12-weeks follow-up. Inter- and intra-group comparisons were made using Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon signed ranks test. P-value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS:

Thirty-eight male patients (20 in Group-I and 18 in Group-II) were included. The mean age of vaping individuals in groups I and II were 33.6 ± 2.8 and 35.4 ± 2.1 years, respectively. Mean daily frequency of vaping e-cigs in groups I and II was 7.3 ± 0.9 and 5.9 ± 1.0 whereas mean duration of vaping e-cigs was 4.8 ± 1.5 and 4.1 ± 1.3 years respectively. There was no significant difference between groups at baseline. There was significant improvement in PI (p < 0.001) and PD (p < 0.001) at 12-weeks follow-up with respect to the baseline visit in both groups. There was a significant reduction in PI (p < 0.001) and PD (p < 0.001) for group-I as compared to group-II at follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference for BoP between groups at follow-up.

CONCLUSION:

Antimicrobial PDT is more effective compared to MD alone in the treatment of p-iM in individuals vaping e-cigs. The findings of the present study should be considered preliminary and interpreted with caution. Further randomized clinical trials should be performed in order to obtain strong conclusions.

KEYWORDS:

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy; Electronic cigarettes; Implantology; Peri-implant mucositis; Randomized clinical trial

PMID:
29550362
DOI:
10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.03.002
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center