AIM: To evaluate the adjunctive effect of locally delivered metronidazole-minocycline (Met/Mc) versus minocycline (Mc) ointment and mechanical debridement alone in non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peri-implantitis was induced through ligature in a canine model. Implants were allocated to mechanical debridement (control), Mc or Met/Mc. Probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), marginal bone levels (MBLs) and immunohistochemical parameters (CD3, CD20, IgG) were assessed over 12 weeks. RESULTS: Both Met/Mc and Mc showed significantly greater PD reductions than control (Δ -5.33 ± 1.35 mm and -3.67 ± 1.89 mm vs. -0.04 ± 1.80 mm; p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0004). BOP and MBL reductions were significantly greater in Met/Mc than Mc and control (BOP: Δ -5.67 ± 0.71 vs. -3.22 ± 2.54 vs. -0.78 ± 1.99, p = 0.020; MBL: Δ -2.41 ± 1.21 vs. -0.80 ± 0.21 vs. +0.64 ± 0.93 mm, p = 0.0035). Met/Mc showed significantly lower CD3, CD20 and IgG than the control and lower CD20 and IgG than Mc (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this preclinical model, adjunctive Met/Mc ointment yielded greater clinical and radiographic improvements than both comparators, accompanied by reduced B-cell and plasma-cell infiltration. These findings provide preclinical proof of concept, however, warranting clinical confirmation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Park et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: