Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

OHI plus mechanical instrumentation shows higher success rates than OHI alone for peri-implant mucositis

OHI plus mechanical instrumentation shows higher success rates than OHI alone for peri-implant mucos…
Photo by Nathan Rimoux / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider adding mechanical instrumentation to OHI for peri-implant mucositis, but note the evidence is not statistically definitive.

This randomized controlled trial evaluated 56 patients with peri-implant mucositis (48 analyzed) over 1 and 3 months. The intervention compared oral hygiene instructions (OHI) alone to OHI plus mechanical instrumentation (MI). The primary outcome was disease resolution (success rates).

At the patient level, success rates were 39.1% for OHI alone versus 56% for OHI plus MI at 3 months. At the implant level, success rates were 36.4% versus 67.3%. The study noted a greater divergence in outcomes at 3 months, but reported that intergroup differences were not statistically significant. Both groups showed a significant reduction in the modified bleeding index (mBI) (p < 0.001).

Key secondary findings indicated that higher full-mouth plaque and bleeding indices at 3 months predicted lower patient-level success (p < 0.05). Patient compliance was strongly associated with improved outcomes (OR = 11.4, p = 0.004). Failure at the implant level was associated with OHI-only therapy, non-compliance, and higher mPI (p = 0.001). A history of periodontitis was linked to higher mBI at 3 months (p = 0.010). Safety and tolerability data were not reported.

A key limitation is that a history of periodontitis and posterior implant location negatively influenced outcomes. The lack of statistical significance for the primary comparison and unreported safety data limit definitive conclusions. For practice, the data suggest a potential numerical benefit for adding MI to OHI, but clinicians should interpret this cautiously due to the study's limitations and focus on optimizing patient compliance, which was a strong predictor of success.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 48
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
AIM: To determine whether oral hygiene instructions (OHI) alone can be effective in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial with 56 PM patients was conducted. Participants were assigned to OHI (n = 28) or OHI + Mechanical Instrumentation (MI) (n = 28). Clinical [modified bleeding index (mBI), disease resolution] and microbiological parameters were assessed at baseline (T1), 1 month (T2), and 3 months (T3). Standardized periapical radiographs were taken at T1 and T3. Outcomes were analyzed at patient- and implant-level. RESULTS: 48 patients with 118 implants were analyzed (52 in OHI; 66 in OHI + MI). At T3, success rates were 39.1% (OHI) and 56% (OHI + MI) at the patient level, and 36.4% (OHI) versus 67.3% (OHI + MI) at the implant level. Both groups showed a significant reduction in mBI (p < 0.001). Intergroup differences were not statistically significant, though greater divergence was noted at T3. At the patient level, higher FMPI/FMBI at 3 months predicted lower success (p < 0.05), whereas compliance improved outcomes (OR = 11.4, p = 0.004). At the implant level, failure was associated with OHI-only therapy, non-compliance, and higher mPI (all p = 0.001). History of periodontitis was a negative prognostic factor, linked to higher mBI at T3 (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: OHI achieved resolution of PM in a considerable proportion of patients, particularly among compliant individuals. However, a history of periodontitis and posterior implant location negatively influenced outcomes. These findings highlight the importance of patient adherence and implant accessibility, while reaffirming the critical adjunctive role of MI in optimizing therapeutic success.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.