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

Diagnosis and management of peri-implant diseases

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory lesions which may affect the peri-implant mucosa only (peri-implant mucositis) or also result in loss of supporting bone (peri-implantitis). Peri-implantitis may lead to loss of the implant. Diagnosis of peri-implant disease requires the use of conventional probing to identify the presence of bleeding on probing, and suppuration, both signs of clinical inflammation. Radiographs are required to detect loss of supporting bone. Baseline probing measurements and radiographs should be obtained once the restoration of the implant is completed to allow longitudinal monitoring of peri-implant conditions. Two cross-sectional reports from Sweden indicate that the prevalence of peri-implant disease is high. Smokers and patients who have a history of periodontitis are more at risk for peri-implant disease. The main goal of treatment of peri-implant disease is to control the infection and to prevent disease progression. A number of studies have documented the successful treatment of peri-implant mucositis combining mechanical debridement and chemical plaque control. There is evidence supporting antimicrobial treatment regimens in combination with non-surgical or surgical debridement for peri-implantitis treatment. Long-term data to support these treatment protocols is limited. Whilst it is possible to treat peri-implantitis, prevention is the goal of supportive therapy.

A comprehensive and critical review of dental implant prognosis in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients

OBJECTIVES

The outcome of implant treatment in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients has not been completely clarified. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform, applying a systematic methodology, a comprehensive and critical review of the prospective studies published in English up to and including August 2006, regarding the short-term (<5 years) and long-term (>or=5 years) prognosis of osseointegrated implants placed in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using The National Library Of Medicine and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases, a literature search for articles published up to and including August 2006 was performed. At the first phase of selection the titles and abstracts and at the second phase full papers were screened independently and in duplicate by the three reviewers (I. K. K., S. K., I. F.).

RESULTS

The search provided 2987 potentially relevant titles and abstracts. At the first phase of evaluation, 2956 publications were rejected based on title and abstract. At the second phase, the full text of the remaining 31 publications was retrieved for more detailed evaluation. Finally, 15 prospective studies were selected, including seven short-term and eight long-term studies. Because of considerable discrepancies among these studies, meta-analysis was not performed.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences in both short-term and long-term implant survival exist between patients with a history of chronic periodontitis and periodontally healthy individuals. Patients with a history of chronic periodontitis may exhibit significantly greater long-term probing pocket depth, peri-implant marginal bone loss and incidence of peri-implantitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Even though the short-term implant prognosis for patients treated for aggressive periodontitis is acceptable, on a long-term basis the matter is open to question. Alterations in clinical parameters around implants and teeth in aggressive periodontitis patients may not follow the same pattern, in contrast to what has been reported for chronic periodontitis patients. However, as only three studies comprising patients treated for aggressive periodontitis were selected, more studies, specially designed, are required to evaluate implant prognosis in this subtype of periodontitis. As the selected publications exhibited considerable discrepancies, more studies, uniformly designed, preferably longitudinal, prospective and controlled, would be important.

Impact of supportive periodontal therapy and implant surface roughness on implant outcome in patients with a history of periodontitis

OBJECTIVE

This review searched for a relationship between susceptibility to periodontitis and peri-implantitis, with implant outcome as the primary outcome variable and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and implant surface roughness as confounding factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It is based on a MEDLINE search up to June 2006. Only 16 fulfilled the selection criteria. The heterogeneity of the studies (e.g. periodontal status, SPT, prosthetic design, ...) rendered a meta-analysis impossible. The impact of a history of periodontitis on early implant loss was negligible. Only five papers reported sub-data for patients with different degrees of periodontitis. Four out of five papers indicate a higher incidence of late implant loss and/or marginal bone loss in patients with a history of periodontitis. This difference was most obvious for very rough implants (three papers), and/or when SPT was not organized (one paper). Other confounding factors were often neglected. Another 10 papers only reported the outcome of implants in patients with a history of periodontitis. In case of SPT and when avoiding roughened surfaces, late implant loss remained below 3%, and marginal bone loss remained low.

CONCLUSIONS

These results seem to indicate that periodontally compromised patients can be successfully treated with minimally/moderately rough implants, in the presence of SPT.