An interventional study of Open flap debridement with a chemo-electric device + PRF and Open flap debridement with a chemo-electric device alone (control) in Peri-Implantitis, Bone Resorption and Platelet-Rich Fibrin, sponsored by University of Bern. Recruiting at 1 site in Switzerland. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-03-30.
Sponsored by University of Bern · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) is a second-generation platelet concentrate used for tissue and bone regeneration. PRF releases growth factors such as TGF-β, PDGF, VEGF, IGF, and FGF, which are known to promote wound healing and bone regeneration. Thus, PRF may offer a promising therapeutic approach for peri-implantitis treatment. Numerous studies have reported beneficial effects of PRF on bone regeneration, bone augmentation, soft tissue healing, and ridge preservation. In infrabony periodontal defects, PRF has shown significant improvements in pocket depth reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, and bone fill.
However, a recent systematic review highlighted that evidence supporting PRF use in peri-implantitis remains limited, primarily due to a lack of adequately designed studies. Therefore, the aim of this project is to investigate whether PRF enhances regeneration in peri-implantitis defects. Specifically, it will assess whether surgical debridement of peri-implantitis defects-including electrochemical detoxification of implant surfaces using GalvoSurge-combined with PRF clot and membrane placement, improves treatment outcomes compared to surgical debridement and detoxification using GalvoSurge alone.
For this purpose, implants with peri-implantitis defects of comparable size will be randomly assigned to either the test or control group. After 12 months, implants will be clinically evaluated for radiographic defect fill, reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP). The objective of this project is to verify, both radiographically and clinically, whether adjunctive PRF application enhances tissue regeneration and healing of peri-implantitis defects compared to open flap debridement (OFD) alone.
Peri-implantitis is a chronic inflammatory condition around dental implants, associated with biofilm-mediated infection. The initial stage involves the formation of a bacterial biofilm in the peri-implant tissue, resulting in mucositis, which is characterized by erythema, bleeding, exudation, and swelling. With continued biofilm accumulation, mucositis can progress to peri-implantitis, which is marked by bone destruction. Due to varying definitions of peri-implantitis, the VIII European Workshop on Periodontology established diagnostic criteria, specifying progressive bone loss of ≥ 2 mm with clinical signs of inflammation. Recently, the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology suggested a threshold of ≥ 3 mm. Based on these definitions, recent meta-analyses have shown the prevalence of peri-implantitis to be approximately 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level, highlighting an increasingly significant problem within the global adult population.
Currently, treating peri-implantitis is challenging, costly, and often unpredictable. The primary goals of therapy are to resolve soft-tissue inflammation and stabilize the bony attachment. This requires effective removal of bacterial biofilms and deposits from implant surfaces to enable healing on a biologically clean surface. Peri-implantitis therapy often necessitates a surgical approach that includes surface decontamination with or without the use of a bone substitute. Despite these interventions, surgically treated cases demonstrate a high failure rate, with approximately 60% of cases showing recurrence, underscoring the need for innovative therapeutic approaches.
PRF has recently emerged as a viable alternative to recombinant growth factors due to its ability to support healing naturally. It is obtained by centrifuging blood to create a coagulated plasma that includes a complex mixture of growth factors within a fibrin network. This plasma can be further processed to extract a PRF membrane by squeezing out the serum. PRF membranes are increasingly used to enhance clinical outcomes by delivering growth factors at surgical sites, either alone or in combination with dental implants and collagen membranes.
This project aims to determine whether PRF enhances regeneration in peri-implantitis defects and to compare the outcomes of surgical debridement and implant detoxification combined with PRF clot and membrane placement, against debridement and detoxification alone. For this purpose, implants with peri-implantitis defects of comparable size will be randomly assigned to either the test or control group.
Study Endpoints:
Radiographic defect fill after one year, with a cut-off level of > 1.0 mm Clinical parameters: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and keratinized tissue amount in mm on the oral and buccal implant sides Soft tissue healing as assessed by the Early Wound Healing Index by Wachtel Composite clinical index based on criteria established by Renvert et al. (2018) Patient-reported outcomes assessed through a visual analog scale
322 studies on the registry are indexed under Peri-Implantitis; 88 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 40 is close to the median of 40 across 195 interventional studies indexed under Peri-Implantitis.
Browse Peri-Implantitis studies →University of Bern is the lead sponsor of 209 studies on the registry; 47 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
A mucoperiosteal flap will be raised to visualize the peri-implant defect, granulation tissue will be removed and the implant surface will be cleaned with a chemo-electric device. Thereafter venous blood will be taken, PRF clots and membranes will be prepared after blood centrifugation. The clots and membrane will be applied into the defect. Finally the flap is closed.
Procedure: Open flap debridement with a chemo-electric device + PRF
A mucoperiosteal flap will be raised to visualize the peri-implant defect, granulation tissue will be removed and the implant surface will be cleaned with a chemo-electric device. Thereafter the flap is closed.
Procedure: Open flap debridement with a chemo-electric device alone (control)
The defects will be removed from granulation tissue. Debridement by a chemical-electrical principle will be performed followed by application of PRF clots and membrane. Then, the flap will be closed and sutured.
The defects will be removed from granulation tissue. Debridement by a chemical-electrical principle will be performed. Then the flap will be closed and sutured.
Radiographic defect fill after 12 months
Radiographs of the implant will be made 12 months after the intervention and compared to baseline radiographs. Defect fill in mm will be assessed.
Time frame: Baseline, 12-month follow-up
Change of probing pocket depth
Probing pocket depth (PPD) around the implants will be assessed at baseline and after 12 months after the intervention. PPD will be measured as the distance from the mucosal margin to the bottom of the peri-implant pocket using a periodontal probe with mm markings.
Time frame: Baseline, 12-month follow-up
Change in bleeding on probing
Bleeding on probing with 20 Ncm will be assessed at 6 sites around the implant at baseline and after 6 months. Bleeding on probing reflects the inflammatory state of the peri-implant tissues. Healthy peri-implant tissues present with no bleeding upon gentle probing. According to the grade of inflammation more sites around the implant bleed upon probing. 6 sites per implant will be assessed: mesiobuccal, midbuccal, distobuccal, distolingual, midlingual, mesiolingual. Change in the number of bleeding spots will be assessed from baseline to the 12-month follow-up.
Time frame: Baseline, 12-month follow-up
Soft tissue healing
Healing during the first 2 weeks will be assessed by the early wound healing index. It is represented by a scale. When a low number on the scale is given, fast and uneventful healing occurs.
Time frame: 2 days post-surgery, 7 days and 14 days post-surgery
Radiographic and clinical composite index
A composite outcome of no evidence of BoP (one site out of 6 will be accepted), with no suppuration at any site, PPD ≤ 5 mm and with ≥1 mm defect fill will be used for a successful outcome.
Time frame: Baseline, 12-month follow-up
Patient-reported outcome pain assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS)
A 100 mm scale for pain will be used. Patient will be asked to mark their pain sensation with 0 representing no pain at all and 100 mm representing the worst imaginable pain. The time to recovery defined as pain \<10 mm will be assessed.
Time frame: 2 days post-surgery, 7 days and 14 days post-surgery
Keratinized/attached tissue width
The attached mucosa around an implant might be decisive for peri-implant health by facilitating oral hygiene. Keratinized tissue is mostly attached to the underlying bone. Keratinized tissue width will be measured as the distance from the mucosal margin to the border of the movable and lining mucosa. Lugol's solution will be used to discern the tissue border. The distance will be measured with a periodontal probe with mm markings. The keratinized/attached mucosa width will be measured at baseline and after 12 months
Time frame: Baseline, 12-month follow-up
Plan to share: No
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.