Outcome of implant therapy in patients with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis

Maxillary rehabilitation of periodontally compromised patients with extensive one-piece fixed prostheses supported by natural teeth: a retrospective longitudinal study

Objectives

Oral health-related quality of life is a relatively new but rapidly growing concept in dentistry. It is an aspect of dental health addressing the patient’s perception of whether his/her current oral health status has an impact upon his/her actual quality of life. Dentine hypersensitivity (DHS), which is a common condition of transient tooth pain associated with a variety of exogenous stimuli, may disturb the patient during eating, drinking, toothbrushing and sometimes even breathing. The resulting restrictions on everyday activities can have an important effect on the patient’s quality of life. The aims of this paper were to consider the concept of oral health-related quality of life and to review and discuss the literature on oral health-related quality of life and DHS.

Material and methods

A PubMed literature research was conducted using the terms (“dentin sensitivity” [MeSH Terms] OR (“dentin” [All Fields] AND “sensitivity” [All Fields]) OR “dentin sensitivity” [All Fields]) AND ((“oral health” [MeSH Terms] OR (“oral” [All Fields] AND “health” [All Fields]) OR “oral health” [All Fields]) AND related [All Fields] AND (“quality of life” [MeSH Terms] OR (“quality” [All Fields] AND “life” [All Fields]) OR “quality of life” [All Fields])). Furthermore, a manual search was carried out. Any relevant work published presenting pertinent information about the described issue was considered for inclusion in the review.

Results

The combination of the search terms resulted in a list of only three titles. The few published studies convincingly demonstrated that oral health-related quality of life is negatively affected in patients suffering from DHS.

Conclusions

Patients with sensitive teeth report substantial oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) impairment. Nevertheless, knowledge about the influence of DHS on oral health-related quality of life is incomplete and, therefore, needs further research.

Clinical relevance

Oral diseases can lead to physical, psychological and social disability. This paper shows that DHS can have a negative impact on the patients’ OHRQoL.

Periodontitis, implant loss and peri-implantitis. A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the role of periodontal disease as a risk factor for implant loss, peri-implantitis and implant-bone loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six electronic database and a manual search resulted in 7391 unique publications; after selection only 16 studies were included in systematic review. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), while continuous data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). Due to the expected inter-study heterogeneity, a random effect model was used for both type of data. The pooled effect was considered significant for a P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis revealed that an higher and significant risk for implant loss was present in patients affected by PD (RR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.31-2.17, P < 0.0001). A higher and significant IBL was present in patients with periodontal disease, when compared with patients periodontally healthy (SMD: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.58, P = 0.0002). Patients periodontally compromised showed an increased risk of PI, when compared with patients without periodontitis (RR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.51-3.12, P < 0.0001) No evidence of significant heterogeneity was detected for the three outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Strong evidence suggests that periodontitis is a risk factor for implant loss; moderate evidence revealed that periodontitis is a risk factor for peri-implantitis and that patients with periodontitis have higher implant-bone loss.

Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years

OBJECTIVE

To assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications. The focused question was: What is the survival rate of implants supporting single crowns and implant-supported crowns with a mean follow-up of 5 years and to which extent do biological, technical, and aesthetic complications occur?

METHODS

A Medline search (2006-2011) was performed for clinical studies focusing on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up of at least 5 years. The search was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 24 studies from a previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a). Survival and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year proportions.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies derived from an initial search count of 1083 titles and the complementary publications from the previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a) were selected and the data were extracted. Based on the meta-analysis, survival of implants supporting SCs at 5 years amounted to 97.2% (95% CI: 96.3-97.9%), and at 10 years amounted to 95.2% (95% CI: 91.8-97.2%). The survival of implant-supported SCs was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.2-97.6%) after 5 years and 89.4% (95% CI: 82.8-93.6%) after 10 years. For biological complications, a 5-year cumulative soft tissue complication rate of 7.1% (95% CI: 4.4-11.3%) and a cumulative complication rate for implants with bone loss >2 mm of 5.2% (95% CI: 3.1-8.6%) were calculated. Technical complications reached a cumulative incidence of 8.8% (95% CI: 5.1-15.0%) for screw-loosening, 4.1% (95% CI: 2.2-7.5%) for loss of retention, and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.4-5.2%) for fracture of the veneering material after 5 years. The cumulative 5-year aesthetic complication rate amounted to 7.1% (95% CI: 3.6-13.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of the meta-analysis demonstrated high implant survival rates for both the single tooth implants and the respective single crowns after 5 and 10 years. However, technical, biological, and aesthetic complications were frequent.

The epidemiology of peri-implantitis

AIM

To review the literature on the prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Out of 322 potentially relevant publications we identified 29 articles concerning 23 studies, with information on the presence of signs of peri-implantitis in populations of at least 20 cases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All studies provided data from convenience samples, typically from patients who were treated in a clinical center during a certain period, and most data were cross-sectional or collected retrospectively. Based on the reviewed papers one may state that the prevalence of peri-implantitis seems to be in the order of 10% implants and 20% patients during 5-10 years after implant placement but the individual reported figures are rather variable, not easily comparable and not suitable for meta-analysis. Factors that should be considered to affect prevalence figures are the disease definition, the differential diagnosis, the chosen thresholds for probing depths and bone loss, differences in treatment methods and aftercare of patients, and dissimilarities in the composition of study populations. Smoking and a history of periodontitis have been associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis.

Clinical evaluation of salivary periodontal pathogen levels by real-time polymerase chain reaction in patients before dental implant treatment

Objective

Periodontal pathogens in dental plaque are the main causative agents of periodontitis and peri-implantitis. Detection of the presence of such periodontal pathogens early would serve as a useful tool in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether the periodontal pathogen levels in saliva were correlated with the periodontal status of patients receiving implant treatment.

Materials and Methods

A total of 291 patients visiting Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital were divided into four groups: a no-periodontitis (np) group, a mild-periodontitis (mip) group, a moderate-periodontitis (mop) group, and a severe-periodontitis (sp) group. The levels of the following five periodontal pathogens in saliva were evaluated using real-time polymerase chain reaction: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Prevotella intermedia.

Results

The levels of P. gingivalis and T. forsythia were significantly higher in mop group than in np group (P <  0.05). The levels of all periodontal pathogens tested except A. actinomycetemcomitans were significantly higher in sp group than in np group (P <  0.05).

Conclusion

The detection levels of the periodontal pathogens targeted in saliva samples were correlated with the periodontal status. This suggests that using saliva to screen for periodontopathic bacteria offers an easier-to-use clinical tool than the paper point method in the diagnosis and treatment of periodontitis and peri-implantitis.

Adhesion of Streptococcus mitis and Actinomyces oris in co-culture to machined and anodized titanium surfaces as affected by atmosphere and pH

Background

With the rising demand for osseointegrated titanium implants for replacing missing teeth, often in patients with a history of periodontitis, implant-related infections have become an issue of growing concern. Novel methods for treating and preventing implant-associated infections are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to investigate if different pH, atmosphere and surface properties could restrict bacterial adhesion to titanium surfaces used in dental implants.

Methods

Titanium discs with machined or anodized (TiUnite™) surface were incubated with a co-culture of Streptococcus mitis and Actinomyces oris (early colonizers of oral surfaces) at pH 5.0, 7.0 and 9.0 at aerobic or anaerobic atmosphere. The adhesion was analysed by counting colony forming (CFU) units on agar and by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).

Results

The CFU analysis showed that a pH of 5.0 was found to significantly decrease the adhesion of S. mitis, and an aerobic atmosphere, the adhesion of A. oris. S. mitis was found in significantly less amounts on the anodized surface than the machined surface, while A. oris was found in equal amounts on both surfaces. The CLSM analysis confirmed the results from the CFU count and provided additional information on how the two oral commensal species adhered to the surfaces: mainly in dispersed clusters oriented with the groves of the machined surface and the pores of the anodized surface.

Conclusions

Bacterial adhesion by S. mitis and A. oris can be restricted by acidic pH and aerobic atmosphere. The anodized surface reduced the adhesion of S. mitis compared to the machined surface; while A. oris adhered equally well to the pores of the anodized surface and to the grooves of the machined surface. It is difficult to transfer these results directly into a clinical situation. However, it is worth further investigating these findings from an in vitro perspective, as well as clinically, to gain more knowledge of the effects acid pH and aerobic atmosphere have on initial bacterial adhesion.

A New Classification for the Relationship between Periodontal, Periapical, and Peri-implant Complications

There are numerous studies supporting the high success rate of dental implants used for reconstruction of missing teeth. However, complications like mucositis and peri-implantitis are increasingly reported. Placement of dental implants in partially edentulous patients is associated with the risk of peri-implant diseases, especially when an old or a new inflammatory lesion is present adjacent to the implant site. Although no consensus has been reached on the difference in prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis between fully and partially edentulous patients, available data clearly show that the combination of periodontal lesion and peri-implantitis is a possible risk factor for further complications. Several classification systems have been suggested for determination of the severity of disease around dental implants. However, no classification has been proposed for combined biological complications around teeth and implants. This study reviews the possible pathologic communication routes between natural dentition and the implants installed adjacent to them. Furthermore, we introduce a new classification system for the peri-implant disease in association with natural teeth called "PIST". This system was designed based on the origin of the defects in order to clarify the different pathological situations which can be detected around dental implant. Using this classification system can help improve diagnosis, comparison and subsequent selection of the best treatment option.

Onset of mandible and tibia osteoradionecrosis: a comparative pilot study in the rat

OBJECTIVES

Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) is common in the jaws after radiotherapy. We hypothesized that the mandible is more susceptible to ORN than the tibia, based on site disparity in hypoxic, hypocellular, and hypovascular tissue breakdown.

STUDY DESIGN

Twelve rats received 50 Gy irradiation to mandible or tibia; 4 of the rats further received minor surgical trauma to the irradiated sites. Structural and cellular skeletal changes were assessed with computerized tomography, histology, and immunostaining.

RESULTS

Mandible developed ORN with 70% mean bone loss 10 weeks after irradiation (P < .05), whereas tibia was structurally and radiologically intact 20 weeks after irradiation. Hypocellularity, hypoxia, and oxidative stress were higher in irradiated mandible (P < .001) than tibia (P < .01) but vascular damage was similar at both skeletal sites. Combined effects of radiation and minor trauma promoted mandibular alveolar bone loss and tibial fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

ORN has a more rapid onset in mandible than in tibia in the rat.

Outcomes of dental implant treatment in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the current literatures and to assess outcomes of implant treatment in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies considered for inclusion were searched in Pub-Med. The literature search for studies published in English between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Our findings included literature assessing implant treatment in patients with a history of generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP). All studies were screened according to inclusion criteria. The outcome measures were survival rate of superstructures, marginal bone loss around implant and survival rate of implants. All studies were divided into two follow-up period: short term study (< 5 years) and long term study (≥ 5 years).

RESULTS

Seven prospective studies were selected, including four short-term and three long-term studies. The survival rates of the superstructures were generally high in patients with GAP, i.e. 95.9 - 100%. Marginal bone loss around implant in patients with GAP as compared with implants in patients with chronic periodontitis or periodontally healthy patients was not significantly greater in short term studies but was significantly greater in long term studies. In short term studies, the survival rates of implants were between 97.4% and 100% in patients with GAP-associated tooth loss, except one study. The survival rates of implants were between 83.3% and 96% in patients with GAP in long term studies.

CONCLUSION

Implant treatment in patients with GAP is not contraindicated provided that adequate infection control and an individualized maintenance program are assured.

Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES

To test the survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of customized zirconia and titanium abutments 5 years after crown insertion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with 40 single implants in maxillary and mandibular canine and posterior regions were included. The implant sites were randomly assigned to zirconia abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns or titanium abutments supporting metal-ceramic crowns. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline, and at 6, 12, 36 and 60 months of follow-up. The abutments and reconstructions were examined for technical and/or biological complications. Probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) were assessed at abutments (test) and analogous contralateral teeth (control). Radiographs of the implants revealed the bone level (BL) on mesial (mBL) and distal sides (dBL). Data were statistically analyzed with nonparametric mixed models provided by Brunner and Langer and STATA (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Eighteen patients with 18 zirconia and 10 titanium abutments were available at a mean follow-up of 5.6 years (range 4.5-6.3 years). No abutment fracture or loss of a reconstruction occurred. Hence, the survival rate was 100% for both. Survival of implants supporting zirconia abutments was 88.9% and 90% for implants supporting titanium abutments. Chipping of the veneering ceramic occurred at three metal-ceramic crowns supported by titanium abutments. No significant differences were found at the zirconia and titanium abutments for PPD (meanPPDZrO2 3.3 ± 0.6 mm, mPPDTi 3.6 ± 1.1 mm), PCR (mPCRZrO2 0.1 ± 0.3, mPCRTi 0.3 ± 0.2) and BOP (mBOPZrO2 0.5 ± 0.3, mBOPTi 0.6 ± 0.3). Moreover, the BL was similar at implants supporting zirconia and titanium abutments (mBLZrO2 1.8 ± 0.5, dBLZrO2 2.0 ± 0.8; mBLTi 2.0 ± 0.8, dBLTi 1.9 ± 0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically or clinically relevant differences between the 5-year survival rates, and the technical and biological complication rates of zirconia and titanium abutments in posterior regions.

Treatment Planning and Sequence for Implant Therapy in a Young Adult With Generalized Aggressive Periodontitis

Treatment planning for full-mouth rehabilitation in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis often requires a staged approach. Few articles have addressed treatment planning and sequencing issues in this patient population. This report describes the multidisciplinary management of a young adult by a combination of periodontal and implant therapy and rehabilitation with fixed prostheses. At a 2-year follow-up, the patient's periodontal health and peri-implant conditions were stable. Prosthodontic rationale and treatment planning concepts in a patient with multiple challenges are discussed.

Oral rehabilitation considerations for partially edentulous periodontal patients

Traditional tooth-supported and implant-supported fixed/removable restorations are currently used to replace teeth lost due to periodontal disease. This article reviews the existing literature for oral rehabilitation of partially edentulous periodontal patients with various designs of removable dental prosthesis (RDP), fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) and implant-supported single crown (SC), by addressing their (a) general features, (b) survival and complication rates, along with considerations for treatment planning in periodontal patients, and (c) preference by patients. To answer these issues, relevant articles were searched and critically analyzed, and their data were extracted. Data reviewed indicated that despite many advantages, implant-supported restorations have higher complication rates than tooth-supported restorations. Systematic reviews on conventional RDPs are lacking, but existing literature reviews provide limited evidence suggesting the use of RDPs with design modifications along with strict periodontal care in periodontal patients. Numerous systematic reviews on conventional FDPs and implant-supported restorations provide a moderate level of evidence favoring their survival in periodontal patients; however, for long-term success of these restorations, the patient's periodontal condition needs to be stabilized. In terms of patient preference, no restoration is superior, as they all are governed by their cost, advantages, and disadvantages. Thus, in the wake of existing weak evidence for prosthodontic rehabilitation of periodontal patients by these restorations (especially, conventional RDPs and for FDPs and SCs in implant-supported restorations), longitudinal studies with standardized treatment protocol and methodology are needed to evaluate and compare tooth-supported and implant-supported restorations in periodontal patients with regard to survival rates, cost, maintenance, and patient-centered outcomes.

Patient-related risk factors for implant therapy. A critique of pertinent literature

BACKGROUND

Treatment planning for dental implants involves the assessment of patient-related risk factors prior to formulation of a treatment plan. The aim of this review was to assess relevant literature and provide evidence-based information on the successful surgical placement of dental implants.

METHODS

An electronic search of Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews was undertaken using a combination of MeSH terms and keywords. A handsearch was also performed and cross-referenced with articles cited in papers selected. The primary study parameter was implant failure.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Many studies contain confounding variables, numbers in subcategories are often too small for meaningful statistical analysis, and follow-up times vary and are often short-term.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many risk factors which the clinician is required to know and understand to advise patients, and consider in planning and treatment provision. Consistent evidence exists to show an increased failure rate with smokers, a history of radiotherapy and local bone quality and quantity. Weaker evidence exists to show a higher incidence of peri-implant disease in patients with a history of periodontitis-related tooth loss. Lack of evidence precludes definitive guidelines for patients with autoimmune disorders where expert opinion recommends caution. Osteoporotic patients show acceptable survival rates; however patients on oral bisphosphonates show a small incidence but high morbidity from osteonecrosis of the jaw. Emerging evidence suggests that there is a correlation between genetic traits and disruption of osseointegration.

A 5-year retrospective clinical study of the Dentium implants

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate cumulative survival rate (CSR) of Implantium implants followed for 5 years and association between risk factors and the CSR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of two hundred forty-nine Implantium Implants System (Dentium, Seoul, Korea) placed in ninety-five patients from 2004 to 2009 were investigated with several identified risk factors (sex, systemic disease, smoking, alchohol, reason of tooth loss, length, arch (maxilla or mandible), replace tooth type (incisor, canine, premolar or molar) Kennedy classification, prosthodontic type, prosthodontic design, opposite dentition, abutment type, occlusal material, occlusal unit, splint to tooth, cantilever, other surgery). Clinical examination (mobility, percussion, screw loosening, discomfort, etc.) and radiographic examination data were collected from patient records including all problems during follow-up period according to protocols described earlier. Life table analysis was undertaken to examine the CSR. Cox regression method was conducted to assess the association between potential risk factors and overall CSR.

RESULTS

Five of 249 implants were failed. Four of these were lost before loading. The 5-year implant cumulative survival rate was 97.37%. Cox regression analysis demonstrated a significant predictive association between overall CSR and systemic disease, smoking, reason of tooth loss, arch, Kennedy classification and prosthodontic design (P<.05). The screw related complication was rare. Two abutment screw fractures were found. Another complications of prosthetic components were porcelain fracture, resin facing fracture and denture fracture (n=19).

CONCLUSION

The 5-year CSR of Implantium implants was 97.37%. Implant survival may be dependent upon systemic disease, smoking reason of tooth loss, arch, Kennedy classification and prosthodontic design (P<.05). The presence of systemic diseases and combination of other surgical procedures may be associated with increased implant failure.

Clinical and microbiological characteristics of peri-implantitis cases: a retrospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to follow patient cases retrospectively in a longitudinal manner from the time of implant placement to the time they were diagnosed with peri-implant disease, and to identify associated clinical and microbiological features of peri-implant disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 281 patient cases were chosen from the archives of the Oral Microbiological Diagnostic Laboratory, Gothenburg, Sweden, based on bacterial samples taken from diseased implants. A form was designed and filled in separately for each case including data on patient, implant and disease profile.

RESULTS

Most cases were severe peri-implantitis cases (91.4%). In 41.3% of the patients, peri-implantitis was developed early, already after having implants in function less than 4 years. The type of implant surface was significantly associated with the time in years implants were in function, before disease was developed (P < 0.05). The microbiological results by both culture and checkerboard analysis, although failed to fully correspond to the severity of the disease in terms of magnitude, proved to show that peri-implantitis is a polymicrobial anaerobic infection with increased number of AGNB (aerobic Gram-negative bacilli) in 18.6% of the patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implantitis is a biological complication of implants in function that poses a threat to their long-term survival. It may develop earlier around implants with rough surfaces and it may represent a true infection. Microbiological sampling methods should be improved and uniformed so as to fully unveil the microbiological profile of the disease.

Periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant treatment

Periodontal disease is considered a risk factor in dental implant treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant therapy. A total of 169 patients visiting Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology at Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital were targeted. The following intraoral parameters were measured in each patient: Community Periodontal Index (CPI) score, probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Prevalence of patients with periodontal pockets was high: 38% and 28% of patients had a CPI score of code 3 and 4, respectively. Prevalence of teeth with one or more sites with PPD≥4mm was 27%. Moreover, clinical signs suggestive of periodontitis (PPD, CAL≥4mm) were found in 10-15% of tooth sites. Prevalence rates at sites with severe periodontal breakdown (PPD, CAL≥7mm) were 2-5%. These results further emphasize the importance of thorough periodontal assessment in patients prior to dental implant treatment.

Comparative biology of chronic and aggressive periodontitis vs. peri-implantitis

This review was undertaken to address the similarities and dissimilarities between the two disease entities of periodontitis and peri-implantitis. The overall analysis of the literature on the etiology and pathogenesis of periodontitis and peri-implantitis provided an impression that these two diseases have more similarities than differences. First, the initiation of the two diseases is dependent on the presence of a biofilm containing pathogens. While the microbiota associated with periodontitis is rich in gram-negative bacteria, a similar composition has been identified in peri-implant diseases. However, increasing evidence suggests that S. aureus may be an important pathogen in the initiation of some cases of peri-implantitis. Further research into the role of this gram-positive facultative coccus, and other putative pathogens, in the development of peri-implantitis is indicated. While the initial host response to the bacterial challenge in peri-implant mucositis appears to be identical to that encountered in gingivitis, persistent biofilm accumulation may elicit a more pronounced inflammatory response in peri-implant mucosal tissues than in the dentogingival unit. This may be a result of structural differences (such as vascularity and fibroblast-to-collagen ratios). When periodontitis and peri-implantitis were produced experimentally by applying plaque-retaining ligatures, the progression of mucositis to peri-implantitis followed a very similar sequence of events as the development of gingivitis to periodontitis. However, some of the peri-implantitis lesions appeared to have periods of rapid progression, in which the infective lesion reached the alveolar bone marrow. It is therefore reasonable to assume that peri-implantitis in humans may also display periods of accelerated destruction that are more pronounced than that observed in cases of chronic periodontitis. From a clinical point of view the identified and confirmed risk factors for periodontitis may be considered as identical to those for peri-implantitis. In addition, patients susceptible to periodontitis appear to be more susceptible to peri-implantitis than patients without a history of periodontitis. As both periodontitis and peri-implantitis are opportunistic infections, their therapy must be antiinfective in nature. The same clinical principles apply to debridement of the lesions and the maintenance of an infection-free oral cavity. However, in daily practice, such principles may occasionally be difficult to apply in peri-implantitis treatment. Owing to implant surface characteristics and limited access to the microbial habitats, surgical access may be required more frequently, and at an earlier stage, in periimplantitis treatment than in periodontal therapy. In conclusion, it is evident that periodontitis and peri-implantitis are not fundamentally different from the perspectives of etiology, pathogenesis, risk assessment, diagnosis and therapy. Nevertheless, some difference in the host response to these two infections may explain the occasional rapid progression of peri-implantitis lesions. Consequently, a diagnosed peri-implantitis should be treated without delay.

The effect of smoking on early bone remodeling on surface modified Southern Implants®

INTRODUCTION

Smoking affects the survival of turned titanium implants. Although smoking has less impact on the failure rate of rough surface implants, the effect on bone loss on rough surface implants has not been studied yet and may be an important factor in biological stability.

AIM

To determine the effect of smoking on early implant failures and bone remodeling around moderately rough implants (Southern Implants®, Southern Implants, Irene, South Africa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three hundred twenty-nine patient records, containing information on 712 installed implants, were scrutinized retrospectively and periapical radiographs were analyzed for interproximal bone level. Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test were performed to compare bone level and implant survival in smokers and nonsmokers. Only implants with at least 6 months of function time were analyzed for bone level changes.

RESULTS

The overall survival rate was 98.3%. Implants in smokers had a threefold higher failure rate compared with nonsmokers (5/104 = 4.8% vs 7/608 = 1.2%). This was statistically significant on implant level (p = .007) but not on patient level (1/41 vs 7/288, p = .997). Readable radiographs from 363 implants in 169 patients were available with a mean follow-up of 12 months (SD 5.11; range 6-28). The mean interproximal bone level was 1.36 mm (n = 363; SD 0.41; range 0.48-3.70). Bone levels were independent of jaw location. Sixty implants from 21 smokers lost statistically significantly (p = .001) more bone (mean 1.56; SD 0.53; range 0.75-3.22) than the 303 implants in 148 nonsmokers (mean 1.32 mm; SD 0.38; range 0.48-3.7). The maxilla is especially prone to bone loss compared with the mandible (1.70 mm vs 1.26 mm, p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The Southern Implants® system demonstrated a high absolute survival rate. Although smokers are not more prone to implant loss, more pronounced peri-implant bone loss was observed, especially in the maxilla. Whether this affects future biological complications remains to be investigated in prospective long-term studies.

Risk of implant failure and marginal bone loss in subjects with a history of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A number of studies have suggested that implant failure and associated bone loss is greater in subjects with a history of periodontitis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk for marginal bone loss around implants and implant failure in subjects with a history of periodontitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects in studies with a minimum 3-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases and relevant journals were searched up to July 1, 2008, with restriction to English language.

REVIEW METHODS

Prospective and retrospective longitudinal observational clinical studies comparing periodontal/peri-implant variables among subjects with periodontitis and subjects who were periodontally healthy were included. Screening of studies, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Clarification of missing and unclear information was not sought. Outcome measures were: implant survival/failure, peri-implant parameters, changes in radiographic marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, and gingival index.

RESULTS

Seventeen potential studies were identified and six studies were accepted comparing patients with periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients treated with implants. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of implant survival and four studies were eligible for meta-analysis of bone loss around implants. The odds ratio for implant survival was significantly in favor of periodontally healthy patients (3.02, 95% confidence intervals 1.12-8.15). A random effects model showed more marginal bone loss in periodontitis subjects compared with periodontally healthy subjects (standard mean difference 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the heterogenous studies available, a moderate level of evidence indicates that periodontitis subjects were at significantly higher risk for implant failure and greater marginal bone loss as compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Prospective observational studies with subject-based designs are recommended.