Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA–a tool for preventing peri‐implant disease

Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the incidence of biological and technical complications of cemented and screw-retained monolithic lithium-disilicate implant-supported posterior single crowns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-one subjects with a total of 56 implants received randomly allocated 28 cemented and 28 screw-retained crowns. In the screw-retained group, monolithic lithium-disilicate restorations were luted to titanium bases extraorally. In the cemented group, monolithic lithium-disilicate crowns were cemented on individualized titanium abutments intraorally. All restorations were examined according to modified FDI criteria within 2 weeks of inserting the crowns (baseline) and after 12 (n = 46) and 24 (n = 43) months. Bone loss was evaluated by standardized radiographs at baseline and 12 months.

RESULTS

After 12 months, the incidence of mucositis (positive bleeding on probing) was 14.2% (screw-retained) and 17.9% (cement-retained). The gingival and plaque index and a mean marginal bone loss between 0.03-0.15 mm showed no significant difference between the groups. In the cemented group, cement residues were detected at baseline at two restorations (6.9%) by radiographic examination. A complete digital workflow was realized in most cases (85.7%). At 24 months, no restoration had failed, and no chipping of the ceramic had occurred. In the screw-retained group, screw loosening occurred in one implant. In both groups, there was obvious deterioration in the quality of 32% of the occlusal and of 18% of the proximal contact points.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of retention mode of monolithic implant-retained lithium-disilicate posterior crowns had no influence on the biological and technical complication rate.

Treatment planning considerations in the older adult with periodontal disease

Periodontal health in the elderly is influenced by numerous factors, including systemic conditions, patient compliance, age-associated changes, and restorative procedures. The numerous comorbidities seen in the elderly necessitate individualized approaches for treatment planning. In this paper, we review how age, comorbidities, oral hygiene, and restorative dental procedures collectively influence the treatment and management of the periodontium in the elderly. The elderly population is predicted to double in 30 years, which will have an economic impact the dental profession needs to plan for. Preventative and noninvasive treatment, supportive periodontal therapy, and patient-specific maintenance plans are imperative to maintaining oral health in the older population. Multiple coexisting changes, including xerostomia, altered wound healing, altered bone physiology, altered microbiome, and diminished plaque control, can add complexity to periodontal management. Considerations of the patient's general health, the selected periodontal treatment plan, and the selected completed restorative procedures need to be considered. The influence of caries, fixed prosthodontics, partial dentures, shortened dental arch, and implant therapy can have unintended impacts on periodontal health in the elderly. Adverse periodontal outcomes in the elderly can be minimized by carefully assessing the patient's medical history, impact of medications, functional needs, properly finishing and contouring restorations to avoid plaque accumulation, and designing restorations to allow access for hygiene. Partial dentures can be a source of plaque accumulation leading to periodontal disease, caries, and recession around abutment teeth. A shortened dental arch should be considered as a functional and cost-effective alternative to partial dentures. With dental implants, the patient's tissue phenotype, keratinized tissue quantity, risk of peri-implantitis, and patient access for maintaining adequate oral hygiene are all important to consider. Implant risk-assessment tools show promise by providing a systematic approach for early diagnosis to avoid future complications.

A commentary on strategic extraction

BACKGROUND

Advancements in strategies to maintain compromised teeth combined with a greater understanding of risks associated with dental implants invite a reassessment of the benefits of strategic extraction of a tooth with a questionable prognosis or of limited strategic value.

METHODS

Evidence of the management of compromised teeth and decision making for strategic extraction was reviewed. Additionally, the risks for peri-implantitis were evaluated from the perspective of patient centric, biologic, and biomechanical complications.

RESULTS

Recent clinical innovations support a more predictable maintenance of compromised dentition, and the clinical literature provides evidence of the risks associated with dental implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the improvements in dental management of compromised dentition, strategic extraction should be deferred, whenever possible, to avoid complications associated with peri-implantitis.

Impact of collar laser microtexturing on peri-implant health and disease: a retrospective clinical study

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study was aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with the same body design but different collar surface (laser-microtextured vs. not laser-microtextured) after functional loading.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-three patients (29 females, 14 males) with 139 implants (60 laser-microtextured and 79 without laser microtexturing) were included in this study. Patients were consecutively included, and the data were collected during their implant maintenance visit. Clinical and radiographic parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and marginal bone loss (MBL) were recorded. In addition, the implant success index (ISI) score was determined. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the Kruskal-Wallis rank test, or the Pearson χ² test, along with binary logistic regression (p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant).

RESULTS

The median post-loading follow-up was 24 months with 100% survival rate. There was no significant differences in terms of mean PD (3.01 mm vs. 2.63 mm), mean MBL (0.54 vs. 0.49 mm), BoP (56.7% vs. 53.2%), and ISI score between laser-microtextured collars and implants without laser microtexturing. Logistic regression revealed arch as a significant predictor of peri-implantitis (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, there was no statistically significant difference between the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants with laser-microtextured and non-laser-microtextured collar designs. Clinical relevance Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and careful monitoring of implant placement protocols are needed for definite conclusions.

Risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of peri-implantitis: A cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and European periodontists' considerations

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis (PI) is a growing concern in the dental community worldwide. The study aimed to compare U.S. vs. European periodontists' considerations of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management of PI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

393 periodontists from the U.S. and 100 periodontists from Europe (Germany, Greece, Netherlands) responded to anonymous surveys electronically or by mail.

RESULTS

Compared to U.S. periodontists, European respondents were younger, more likely to be female and placed fewer implants per month (9.12 vs. 13.90;p = 0.003). Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, and smoking were considered as very important risk factors by both groups (rated >4 on 5-point scale). European periodontists rated poor oral hygiene (4.64 vs. 4.45;p = 0.005) and history of periodontitis (4.36 vs. 4.10;p = 0.006) as more important and implant surface (2.91 vs. 3.18;p = 0.023), occlusion (2.80 vs. 3.75;p<0.001) and presence of keratinized tissue (3.27 vs. 3.77;p<0.001) as less important than did U.S. periodontists. Both groups rated clinical probing, radiographic bone loss, and presence of bleeding and suppuration as rather important diagnostic criteria. They rated implant exposure/mucosal recession as relatively less important with U.S. periodontists giving higher importance ratings than European periodontists (3.99 vs. 3.54;p = 0.001). Both groups nearly always used patient education, plaque control and mechanical debridement when treating PI. U.S. periodontists were more likely to use antibiotics (3.88 vs. 3.07;p<0.001), lasers (2.11 vs. 1.68;p = 0.005), allograft (3.39 vs. 2.14;p<0.001) and regenerative approaches (3.57 vs. 2.56;p<0.001), but less likely to use resective surgery (3.09 vs. 3.53;p<0.001) than European periodontists.

CONCLUSIONS

U.S. and European periodontists' considerations concerning risk factors, diagnosis and management of PI were evidence-based. Identified differences between the two groups can inform future educational efforts. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A retrospective study in patients with treated periodontitis and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)

Aim

To evaluate the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) tool for the prediction of peri‐implantitis in treated periodontitis patients with implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after at least 5 years of function.

Material and methods

From the patient pool of implant patients enrolled in a regular supportive periodontal therapy programme (SPT) for at least 5 years, 239 patients were screened. Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent evaluation through the criteria of the IDRA tool. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including 95% confidence intervals were estimated.

Results

Seventy‐nine patients (43 males and 36 females, 8 smokers), aged on average 59.0 years (range: 40–79 years) at baseline (i.e. FDP delivery) were analysed. The calculated IDRA‐risk was in 34 patients (42.5%) a moderate risk, while 45 patients (56.3%) were considered at high IDRA‐risk. One patient categorized at low IDRA‐risk was excluded from the analysis.

The AUC was 0.613 (95% CI: 0.464–0.762) if the IDRA‐risk was associated with prevalence of peri‐implantitis at the most recent follow‐up. Peri‐implantitis was diagnosed in 4 patients (12%) at moderate and in 12 patients (27%) at high IDRA‐risk, respectively. The calculated odds ratio for developing peri‐implantitis in patients with high IDRA‐risk compared with patients with moderate IDRA‐risk was 2.727 with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.793–9.376).

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, the IDRA algorithm might represent a promising tool to assess patients at moderate or high risk of developing peri‐implantitis.

Comparison of irrigation protocols for the internal decontamination of dental implants-results of in vitro and in vivo studies

OBJECTIVES

Previous investigations have shown a progressive bacterial colonization of the internal cavities of two-piece dental implants with possible implications for peri-implant bone loss. The aim of the study was to compare different irrigation protocols for the internal decontamination of implants in vitro and in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In the in vitro part, 80 samples were obtained 24 h after inoculation with an aliquot of subgingival bacteria from 40 implants as follows: before and after either cleaning with a brush and an irrigation solution (irrigation-brush-irrigation: test) or repeated irrigation alone (irrigation-irrigation: control). In the clinical study, 40 samples from twenty partially edentulous patients contributing each with one implant were collected after removal of abutment and suprastructure with sterile paper points immediately before and after decontamination and subsequently analyzed for total bacterial counts (TBC) by real-time-PCR. Irrigation solutions were chlorhexidine (0.2% (CHX)), H₂ O₂ (10%), alcohol (70%, (ALC)), and NaCl (0.9%). Differences in proportional reduction of TBC between the four irrigation solutions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Irrigation with H₂ O₂ showed the highest effect in both parts of the study (relative TBC reduction in vitro: H₂ O₂ : 87.1%, CHX: 56.9%, ALC: 43.7%, NaCl: 42.7%; in vivo: H₂ O₂ : 51.4%, ALC: 30.4%, NaCl: 26.3%, CHX: 7.1%). The additional use of a brush showed no beneficial effect (p = 0.088). Overall, H₂ O₂ was superior to all other irrigation solutions with regard to relative TBC reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results indicate the potential of an irrigation protocol that includes a 10% H₂ O₂ solution for the internal decontamination of implants. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01917305).

Resolution of peri-implantitis by means of implantoplasty as adjunct to surgical therapy: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of data on the effectiveness of implantoplasty as adjunct to the surgical management of peri-implantitis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the resolution of peri-implantitis by means of implantoplasty as adjunct to surgical resective (RES) and reconstructive (REC) therapies and supportive maintenance.

METHODS

Patients that underwent surgical therapy to manage peri-implantitis with a follow-up of ≥12 months and enrolled in a regular peri-implant supportive care were recruited. RES group consisted of two interventions that included osseous recontouring and apically position flap (APF) and soft tissue conditioning (STC). REC was performed in the infra-osseous compartment of combined defects. Implant survival rate was recorded. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated to define a "dogmatic" (case definition #1) and a "flexible" (case definition #2) therapeutic success. Univariate and multivariate multilevel backward logistic regression were applied for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, 43 patients (n_implants  = 135) were retrospectively assessed. Mean observational period was ∼24 months. Implant survival rate was 97.8%, being significantly higher for APF, STC, and APF + STC (RES) when compared with REC (P = 0.01) therapy, in particular for advanced lesions (>50% of bone loss). The overall therapeutic success rate at implant-level was 66% and 79.5% for case definition #1 and #2, respectively. APF group displayed more efficient disease resolution when considered success definition #1 (72%). Contrarily, when the data were adhered to success definition #2, STC group showed a slightly higher disease resolution rate (87%). For RES group, location, favoring anterior (P = 0.04) and defect type, favoring class II (P = 0.02) displayed statistical significance for therapeutic success. For REC group, implants exhibiting a wider band of keratinized mucosa (KM) demonstrated higher therapeutic success (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Implantoplasty as an adjunct to surgical therapy proved effective in terms of disease resolution and implant survival rate. Implant location, defect morphology as well as the buccal width of KM are indicators of therapeutic success.

A Mini Review on Non-augmentative Surgical Therapy of Peri-Implantitis—What Is Known and What Are the Future Challenges?

Non-augmentative surgical therapy of peri-implantitis is indicated for cases with primarily horizontal bone loss or wide defects with limited potential for bone regeneration and/or re-osseointegration. This treatment approach includes a variety of different techniques (e.g., open flap debridement, resection of peri-implant mucosa, apically positioned flaps, bone re-contouring, implantoplasty, etc.) and various relevant aspects should be considered during treatment planning. The present mini review provides an overview on what is known for the following components of non-augmentative surgical treatment of peri-implantitis and on potential future research challenges: (1) decontamination of the implant surface, (2) need of implantoplasty, (3) prescription of antibiotics, and (4) extent of resective measures.

Ibero-Panamerican Federation of Periodontics Delphi study on the trends in diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant diseases and conditions: A Latin American consensus

BACKGROUND

The social diversity, heterogeneous culture, and inherent economic inequality factors in Latin America (LA) justify conducting a comprehensive analysis on the current status and future trends of peri-implant diseases and conditions. Thus, the aim of this Delphi study was to predict the future trends in the diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant diseases and conditions in LA countries for the year 2030.

METHODS

A Latin American steering committee and group of experts in implant dentistry validated a questionnaire including 64 questions divided into eight sections. The questionnaire was run twice with an interval of 45 days, with the results from the first round made available to all the participants in the second round. The results were expressed in percentages and data was analyzed describing the consensus level reached in each question.

RESULTS

A total of 221 experts were invited to participate in the study and a total 214 (96.8%) completed the two rounds. Moderate (65%-85%) to high consensus (≥ 85%) was reached in 51 questions (79.69%), except in the questions dealing with "prevalence", where no consensus was reached. High and moderate consensus was attained for all the questions in three fields (risk factors and indicators, diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant conditions and deficiencies, and prevention and maintenance).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study has provided relevant and useful information on the predictions in the diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant diseases with a high level of consensus among experts. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of agreement in certain domains.

Removable denture is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis and facilitates expansion of specific periodontopathogens: a cross-sectional study

Background

The prevalence of peri-implantitis ranges between 7 and 38.4% depending on risk indicators such as smoking, diabetes mellitus, lack of periodontal maintenance program, and history or presence of periodontitis. Currently, the possible effect of the type of superstructure on peri-implant health is unclear. This cross-sectional study aims to investigate the influence of the superstructure on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis and peri-implant dysbiosis.

Methods

During a 32-month recruitment period dental implants were assessed to diagnose healthy peri-implant tissues, mucositis or peri-implantitis. The study included 1097 implants in 196 patients. Out of all peri-implantitis cases 20 randomly chosen submucosal biofilms from implants with fixed denture (FD) originating from 13 patients and 11 biofilms from implants with removable dentures (RD) originating from 3 patients were studied for microbiome analysis. Composition of transcriptionally active biofilms was revealed by RNAseq. Metatranscriptomic profiles were created for thirty-one peri-implant biofilms suffering from peri-implantitis and microbiome changes associated with superstructure types were identified.

Results

16.41% of the implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis, 25.00% of implants with RD and 12.68% of implants with FD, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed a significant positive association on patient (p =  < 0.001) and implant level (p = 0.03) between the prevalence of peri-implantitis and RD. Eight bacterial species were associated either with FD or RD by linear discriminant analysis effect size method. However, significant intergroup confounders (e.g. smoking) were present.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of the present work, RDs appear to be a risk indicator for peri-implantitis and seem to facilitate expansion of specific periodontopathogens. Potential ecological and pathological consequences of shift in microbiome from RDs towards higher activity of Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies animalis and Prevotella intermedia require further investigation.

Association between periodontitis treatment outcomes and peri-implantitis: A long-term retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Retrospectively evaluate the association of periodontal treatment outcomes and the prevalence of peri-implant diseases around tissue-level implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-six patients with 260 tissue-level implants attending supporting periodontal and implant therapy for more than 3 years were evaluated. Clinical and radiographic periodontal and implant data were recorded at initial examination (T0), before implant placement (T1) and at final re-examination (T2). Two definitions of peri-implantitis severity, PIBE and PIKA, were used corresponding to the presence of periodontal pocket ≥5 mm or ≥6 mm with bleeding on probing or suppuration and radiographic signs of a bone level ≥2 mm, or ≥3 mm during implant follow-up, respectively. Analyses were performed at patient level.

RESULTS

The mean implant follow-up per patient was 9.4 years and 38.0% of patients had implant for at least 10 years. Two implants were lost due to peri-implantitis. The prevalence of patients with PIKA and PIBE was 15.1% and 12.8%, respectively. Residual periodontal pockets, clinical attachment loss and bone loss/age at T2 were more pronounced in patients with PIKA and PIBE. Cox regression analysis adjusted with the number of implants per patient showed that residual pockets at T1 were independently associated with PIKA and PIBE. Initial diagnosis of severe periodontitis was associated with PIBE incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study showed that periodontal conditions before implant placement are a risk indicator for peri-implantitis incidence. During implant follow-up, the severity of periodontal status appeared to be a reliable indicator of patient susceptibility to peri-implantitis.

The correlation between history of periodontitis according to staging and grading and the prevalence/severity of peri-implantitis in patients enrolled in maintenance therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if a previous history of periodontitis according to the preset definitions of the 2017 World Workshop is correlated with increased implant failure, and occurrence and severity of peri-implantitis (PI).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with a history of periodontitis who received nonsurgical and, if indicated, surgical corrective therapy prior to implant placement was performed. Periodontitis stage and grade were determined for each included patient based on data from the time of initiation of active periodontal therapy. Cox Proportional Hazard Frailty models were built to analyze the correlation between stage and grade of periodontitis at baseline with implant failure, as well as occurrence and severity of PI.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients with a history of periodontitis receiving 221 implants were followed for a mean duration of 10.6 ± 4.5 years after implant placement. Six implants (2.7%) failed and a higher rate of implant failure due to PI was found for grade C patients (P < 0.05), whereas only an increased trend was seen for stages III and IV compared with I and II. Grading significantly influenced the risk of marginal bone loss (MBL) >25% of the implant length (P = 0.022) in PI-affected implants. However, a direct correlation between higher-level stage and grade and PI prevalence was not recorded.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant association between periodontitis stage or grade and the prevalence of PI was found. However, when PI was diagnosed, there was a relationship between periodontitis grade and severity of PI or the occurrence of implant failure.

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri-implant diseases: A university-representative cross-sectional study

AIM

To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two hundred and forty randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history were collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. Peri-implantitis was defined as the presence of BoP/SoP together with radiographic bone levels (BL) ≧2 mm. An intermediate peri-implant health category between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was also identified, defined by the presence of BoP/SoP together with 1 mm ≦BL < 2 mm. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri-implantitis.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalences of pre-periimplantitis and of peri-implantitis were, respectively, 31.3% and 56.6% at patient-level, while 31.7% and 27.9% at implant level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis: smoking (OR = 3.59; 95% CI: 1.52-8.45), moderate/severe periodontitis (OR = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.20-6.36), <16 remaining teeth (OR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.05-4.73), plaque (OR = 3.49; 95% CI: 1.13-10.75), implant malposition (too vestibular: OR = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.17-6.93), implant brand (Nobel vs. Straumann: OR = 4.41;95% CI: 1.76-11.09), restoration type (bridge vs. single crown: OR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.19-5.12), and trauma as reason of tooth loss (vs. caries: OR = 6.51; 95% CI: 1.45-29.26). Conversely, the following factors were identified as protective indicators: interproximal flossing/brushing (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11-0.68), proton pump inhibitors (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.90), and anticoagulants (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.56).

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant diseases are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university-based population. Several factors were identified as risk- and protective- indicators of peri-implantitis.

Antimicrobial Prosthetic Surfaces in the Oral Cavity-A Perspective on Creative Approaches

Replacement of missing teeth is an essential component of comprehensive dental care for patients suffering of edentulism. A popular option is implant-supported restorations. However, implant surfaces can become colonized with polymicrobial biofilms containing Candida species that may compromise peri-implant health. To prevent this, implant components may be treated with a variety of coatings to create surfaces that either repel the attachment of viable microorganisms or kill microorganisms on contact. These coatings may consist of nanoparticles of pure elements (more commonly silver, copper, and zinc), sanitizing agents and disinfectants (quaternary ammonium ions and chlorhexidine), antibiotics (cefalotin, vancomycin, and gentamicin), or antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). AMPs in bioactive coatings have a number of advantages. They elicit a protective action against pathogens, inhibit the formation of biofilms, are less toxic to host tissues, and do not prompt inflammatory responses. Furthermore, many of these coatings may involve unique delivery systems to direct their antimicrobial capacity against pathogens, but not commensals. Coatings may also contain multiple antimicrobial substances to widen antimicrobial activity across multiple microbial species. Here, we compiled relevant information about a variety of creative approaches used to generate antimicrobial prosthetic surfaces in the oral cavity with the purpose of facilitating implant integration and peri-implant tissue health.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Case Series

Peri-implantitis is one of the most important biological complication of dental implants. It has inflammatory nature, proved association with plaque accumulation in peri-implant tissues, and can be progressive on background of several factors, like comorbidity factors and bad habits. The prophylaxis and different methods of treatment were discussed during last 30 years, and surgical and nonsurgical techniques have their foes, benefits, and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the case series of various nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis with the use of protocols based on the application of local antibiotics (doxycycline, lincomycin, and erythromycin), mechanical and chemical debridement of dental implant surface, and mini-invasive regenerative technique with injections of bovine collagen. All these three cases demonstrated good results with the maintenance of bone level and absence of clinical signs of inflammation for at least a year according to the X-ray imaging (bone defect volume) and clinic assessments (probing depth, bleeding or suppuration, mucosa color, and pain presence).