All trials so far have had generally short follow-up periods and limited numbers of subjects. It is expected we will learn more about peri-implant mucositis as the number of patients opting to have implants continues to rise. There is little evidence for the most effective interventions for maintaining health and reversing the effects of peri-implant mucositis on the soft periodontal tissues. More RCTs should be conducted on implants and their potential failure and the inflammation of the periodontal tissues that can be caused by them, especially long term studies. Such trials will likely be difficult and expensive to carry out but there is definitely a need for them in order to find a definitive answer on how implants should be maintained and treated. Research is being continued into the investigations of peri-implant crevicular fluid and saliva in an attempt to find biomarkers that are diagnostic and will be indicative of peri-implant mucositis before the disease has started and other clinical signs and symptoms are visible. There are concerns with metal and ultrasonic instrumentation roughening implant surface and causing increased plaque retention. Studies in vitro have found that special coated scalers and ultrasonic tips (e.g. newly developed metallic tip and plastic hand curettes) were compatible with implant surfaces and caused minimal damage. However, this is yet to be confirmed in vivo. It was also found that plastic-coated scalers left plastic deposits on implant surfaces, hence more research is needed for evaluating their use in debriding implant.
However, it is now thought that this will lead to less peri-implant mucositis being caused in all implant patients. Despite this, there have been concerns about the link between mouthwashes containing alcohol and the incidence of oral cancer.Some studies looked solely at interventions which contribute to the reversal of peri-implant mucositis. One such study found no statistically significant difference between triclosan dentrifice in comparison to sodium fluoride dentrifice at recovering soft tissue health. There were also two trials conducted where patients with peri-implant mucositis were assessed after different interventions carried out by dental professionals. In these trials mechanical debridement being followed by minocycline or chlorhexidine gel had no statistically significant difference, nor did debridement with titanium curettes compared to an ultrasonic debridement tool. Nouveau interventions
A double‐blind randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of subgingival ozone (O3, gaseous ozone, HealOzone MK II, KaVo) and/or hydrogen peroxide on the development of peri‐implant mucositis, found that ozone showed significant potential for management of peri-implant mucositis compared to oxygen and saline.Mechanical curettage with adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy is more effective in reducing peri-implant inflammation in smokeless tobacco product users as compared to mechanical curettage alone in the short term (3 months). Further long-term studies will be needed to confirm long term efficacy.Current research found no evidence for use of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis

Further Discussion
There is low quality evidence to suggest the most effective treatments for peri-implant mucositis, with no reliable evidence for which are more beneficial in the long term.