Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:43:54Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
KarynaMM_DISSERT.pdf: 1613458 bytes, checksum: 37ceb3c8bc9380fd82bea372ee1cedb7 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2014-02-20 / It has been shown that the development of peri-implant mucositis is associated with
biofilm accumulation. It is believed that the therapeutic approaches used in periodontal
disease may have a positive effect in the cases of peri-implant disease. The aim of this study
was to evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis, with or
without the use of chlorhexidine 0,12% in subjects rehabilitated with osseointegrated
implants. Thus, patients were randomly divided into test group (chlorhexidine surgical
therapy) and control (non-surgical treatment). This therapy consisted of an adaptation of the
(Full Mouth scalling and Root Planing) nonoperative protocol FMSRP, but without the use of
ultrasound. The visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), probing depth
(PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and keratinized mucosa clinical parameters were evaluated
at baseline and at different times after treatment. The data were not normally distributed and
the implant was considered the sampling unit. Data were analyzed using Fri edman and
Wilcoxon chi-square (=5%), tests using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0
(SPSS). Thus, 119 implants were evaluated, 61 in the test group and 58 in the control group.
The results showed statistically significant differences for the variables: average BTI implants
in both groups (p<0,001), mean ISG implants both in the test group (p<0,001), and control
(p= 0,006) of implants; PS for the test group (p< 0,001) and control (p = 0,015) and SS
(p<0,001) in the two treatment groups. However, there was no statistically significant
difference when the groups were compared. The PS and SS variables showed no statistically
significant difference in any of independent interest to the study (age, sex, smoking, treatment
group, keratinized mucosa at different times, peri-implant biotype, average VPI implants and
GBI). Thus, it can be concluded that both the mechanical treatment isolated as its association
with chlorhexidine mouthwash 0.12% can be used for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.
Moreover, the condition of oral h ygiene has improved between baseline and six months and
the depth and bleeding on probing decreased after three and six months / Tem sido demonstrado que o desenvolvimento da mucosite peri-implantar est?
associado ao ac?mulo de biofilme dent?rio. Acredita-se que as abordagens terap?uticas
utilizadas nas doen?as periodontais podem apresentar efeito positivo nos casos de doen?as
peri-implantares. O objetivo desse estudo foi avaliar a efic?cia do tratamento n?o cir?rgico da
mucosite peri-implantar em 119 implantes, sendo 61 no grupo teste (digluconato de
clorexidina a 0,12%) e 58 no grupo controle (placebo), em indiv?duos reabilitados com
implantes. Desta forma, os pacientes foram divididos aleatoriamente em grupo teste (terapia
n?o cir?rgica + clorexidina) e controle (terapia n?o cir?rgica). Esta terapia consistiu de uma
adapta??o do protocolo n?o-cir?rgico FMSRP (Full Mouth Scalling and Root Planing),
por?m, sem a utiliza??o do ultrassom. Os par?metros cl?nicos ?ndice de placa vis?vel (IPV),
?ndice de sangramento gengival (ISG), profundidade de sondagem (PS), sangramento ?
sondagem (SS) e mucosa queratinizada foram avaliados no baseline e em diferentes per?odos
ap?s o tratamento. Os dados n?o apresentaram distribui??o normal e o implante foi
considerado a unidade amostral. Os dados foram analisados por meio dos testes de Friedman,
Wilcoxon e Qui-quadrado (=5%), utilizando o Statistical Package for Social Sciences 17.0
(SPSS). Os resultados mostraram que houve diferen?a estatisticamente significativa (p<0,05)
para as vari?veis: m?dia do IPV dos implantes em ambos os grupos; m?dia do ISG dos
implantes tanto no grupo teste, como controle dos implantes; PS para o grupo teste e controle
e SS dentro dos dois grupos de tratamento. No entanto, n?o houve diferen?a estatisticamente
significativa quando os grupos foram comparados. As vari?veis PS e SS n?o mostraram
diferen?a estatisticamente significativa com nenhuma vari?vel independente de interesse para
este estudo (idade, sexo, fumo, grupo de tratamento, mucosa ceratinizada nos diferentes
tempos, bi?tipo peri-implantar, m?dia do IPV e ISG nos implantes). Desta forma, pode-se
concluir que tanto a terapia mec?nica isolada como sua associa??o com bochechos de
digluconato de clorexidina a 0,12% podem ser usados para o tratamento da mucosite peri-implantar. Al?m disso, a condi??o de higiene bucal melhorou entre o baseline e seis meses e a
profundidade e sangramento ? sondagem reduziram ap?s tr?s e seis meses
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/17837 |
| Date | 20 February 2014 |
| Creators | Menezes, Karyna de Melo |
| Contributors | CPF:02569549410, http://lattes.cnpq.br/4649601602612601, Dantas, Euler Maciel, CPF:72172401404, http://lattes.cnpq.br/6454218688409728, Casati, Marcio Zafallon, CPF:17772917805, http://lattes.cnpq.br/9919393751507518, Gurgel, Bruno C?sar de Vasconcelos |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Sa?de Coletiva, UFRN, BR, Sa?de P?blica |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.1932 seconds