Diederik Hentenaar

117 Phosphoric acid in surgical peri-implantitis treatment 7 Chapter 5 Figure 1. Flow diagram Assessed for eligibility ( n = 33) Excluded ( n = 5) • Not meeting inclusion criteria ( n = 4) • Declined to participate ( n = 1) Analysed for primary outcome: ( n = 14 subjects, 22 implants) Analysed for secondary outcomes: ( n = 12 subjects, 20 implants) Lost to follow-up ( n = 2) Discontinued intervention ( n = 0) Allocated to control-group ( n = 14 subjects, 22 implants) • Received allocated intervention ( n = 12) • Did not receive allocated intervention ( n = 0) Lost to follow-up ( n = 1) Discontinued intervention ( n = 0) Randomized ( n = 28) Enrollment Allocated to test-group ( n = 14 subjects, 31 implants) • Received allocated intervention ( n = 14) • Did not receive allocated intervention ( n = 0) Allocation Follow-up Analysis Analysed for primary outcome: ( n = 14 subjects, 31 implants) Analysed for secondary outcomes: (n = 13 subjects, 30 implants) Figure 1. Flow diagram Microbiological outcomes 10 Log-transformed mean bacterial anaerobic counts of the culture-positive implants for the control and test group before and after debridement and decontamination of the implant surface during the surgical procedure are depicted in Table 2. In both groups, the debridement and decontamination procedure resulted in a significant immediate reduction in counts of anaerobic bacteria on the implant surface. Although the reduction in total anaerobic load was greater in the test group, the difference did not reach the level of statistical significance ( p = 0.108). However, in the test group the total anaerobic load was significantly more often reduced below detection level than in the control group (20 out of 23 in the test group, 10 out of 17 in the control group, 5