 65 Eur J Oral Implantol 2015;8(1):65–73 CLINICAL ARTICLE Sabrina Carvalho Gomes, PhD Associate Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal Univer- sity of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Paula Corvello, MSc Faculty of Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Canoas, Brazil Rachel Romagna, MSc Faculty of Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Canoas, Brazil Luis Henrique Müller, MSc Faculty of Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Canoas, Brazil Patrícia Daniela Melchiors Angst, PhD student Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Rui Vicente Oppermann, PhD Head Professor, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil Correspondence to: Sabrina Carvalho Gomes Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Bairro Santana, Porto Alegre – RS, Brazil Zip Code: 90035-003 Tel/Fax : +55 51 3308 5318 Email: sabrinagomes.perio@ gmail.com Sabrina Carvalho Gomes, Paula Corvello, Rachel Romagna, Luis Henrique Müller, Patrícia Daniela Melchiors Angst, Rui Vicente Oppermann How do peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis respond to supragingival bioﬁlm control – an intra-individual longitudinal cohort study Key words dental implant, dental plaque, gingivitis, inﬂammation, peri-implant mucositis Purpose: This single-arm study to compare the gingival with peri-implant mucosal inﬂammatory response to a mechanical supragingival–supramucosal bioﬁlm control program. Materials and methods: Twenty-two participants (55.7 ± 11.2 years) with both gingivitis and peri- implant mucositis were examined at days 0, 30 and 390 (full mouth/6 sites per tooth/implant [TTH/IMPL]) for visible plaque (VPI), gingival bleeding (GBI), modiﬁed plaque (mPlI) and bleeding indexes (mBI), probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). The bioﬁlm control was carried out weekly in the ﬁrst month and every 3 months thereafter. An intention-to-treat analysis was per- formed (drop-out rate = 8) and linear models were used against comparisons in order to look at the clustering of TTH/IMPL by each individual. Results: VPI/mPlI and GBI/mBI reduced from day 0 onwards. Intra-group reductions (P < 0.05) were observed at day 30. PD values (in mm) were higher (P < 0.001) for IMPL than for TTH [mean differ- ence (95% CI) at day 0: -1.10 (-1.58 to -0.63); day 30: -0.88 (-1.28 to -0.48); and day 390: -0.60 (-0.84 to -0.33)], where both groups showed reductions (P < 0.05) throughout the study. BOP was greater (P = 0.00001) for IMPL at baseline [mean difference (95% CI): -0.24 (-0.31 to -0.17)] but reduced (P = 0.00001) and showed similar levels to TTH from day 30 onwards. With regard to sites with the greatest PD, BOP reduced (P < 0.05) in both IMPL and TTH, with greater PD reductions observed for IMPL (P = 0.00001). Conclusions: The supragingival-supramucosal bioﬁlm control beneﬁted both teeth and implants. Conﬂict of interest statement: The study was self-supported and the authors report no conﬂict of interest.  Introduction The inﬂammatory response of the tissues around implants represents a growing challenge. The reported prevalence of mucositis and peri-implan- titis ranges between 63.4% of the subjects/30.7% of the implants; and 18.8% to 20% of subjects/ 9.6% to 10% of implant sites 1,2 respectively. As a consequence, protocols for the treatment of these conditions, the maintenance of peri-implant health and the prevention of implant failure have become of the utmost importance 3,4 . Mucositis and peri-implantitis are inﬂammatory responses with several characteristics similar to gin- givitis and periodontitis 5,6 . One of the most im- portant is the association of mucositis and gingivitis with the accumulation of peri-implant supramu- cosal/supragingival bioﬁlms, whereas peri-implan-