(7) The Influence of Submerged versus Non-Submerged Healing Approaches in the Treatment of Peri-implantitis; a Single-center Re-Analysis Study

Co-Author(s)

Shayan Barootchi, DMD

Graduate Periodontics Resident
University of Michigan School of Dentistry
ann arbor, Michigan, United States
ED

Ebrahim Dastouri Jamnani, DMD

Postdoctoral Fellow
University of Michigan School of Dentistry
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
WH

Wen-Xia Huang, Ph.D.

Professor and Dean, Periodontics Department
Periodontics Department, Stomatological Hospital of Xiamen Medical school
Xiamen, Fujian, China (People's Republic)

Lead Author(s)

Hamoun Sabri, DMD, PgC (he/him/his)

Periodontics Resident
University of Michigan School of Dentistry
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States

Co-Author(s)

Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD

Professor and Director of Graduate Periodontics
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
SW

Shih-Cheng Wen, DDS, MS

Lecturer, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. Private Practice, Taipei County, Taiwan, ROC
Taipei Medical University
Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan (Republic of China)

Introduction: Two commonly used regenerative treatment approaches to manage peri-implantitis are the submerged approach in which the implant suprastructures are removed and a primary closure and coverage of the grafted area is obtained, and the non-submerged approach wherein removal of the suprastructure is not performed and hence the implant cannot be completely submerged. The aim of this study to explore the factors relevant to surgical reconstructive peri-implantitis defects.

Methods: The individual patient data (IPD) of two previously published studies were included as follows: radiographic defect depth (RDD), clinical defect depth (CDD), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and keratinized tissue width (KTW). Finally, radiographic vertical defect depth Reduction (RVDDR) and clinical vertical defect depth reduction CVDDR at the 8-month follow-up visit and pocket probing depth reduction (PPDR), BOP resolution and KTW at 12-month visit were measured as references for evaluation of the peri-implant defects. A mixed-models multi-level linear regression model was created to perform the statistical analysis.

Results: A total of 59 implants (30 submerged and 29 non-submerged healing) were included. The results of the multi-variate regression analysis showed a significantly higher amounts of CVDDR and PPDR in submerged healing (P < 0.001 and P< 0.001). There was no significant correlation between patient related factors (age, gender, smoking etc.) and implant related factors (crown type, arch) with the dependent variables.

Conclusions: Although both healing approaches demonstrated feasible results in terms of the defect resolution and treatment success, the results of this single-center re-analysis study revealed superior outcomes favoring the submerged approach.

Lead Author's Contributions to the Research Project. : Data collection, statistical analysis and finally, writing the manuscript.