Maintenance of Implant Patients: A Narrative Review

Maintenance protocols for implant-supported dental prostheses: A scoping review

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Biological complications of implant-supported prostheses remain a concern. Therefore, standardizing hygiene protocols to promote their maintenance is important.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this scoping review was to identify available hygiene guidance for home care procedures, as well as periodicity and protocols for the professional maintenance of implant-supported prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the study protocol was made available at: https://osf.io/5jdeh/. The search was last performed in the PubMed database on March 15, 2022 and was undertaken by 2 independent researchers. Clinical studies and reviews that evaluated home care and maintenance protocols for dental implant-supported prostheses (fixed or removable), without language restriction or year of publication, were included. A descriptive analysis was performed considering study characteristics (study design, restorative assembly, maintenance strategies, eligibility criteria, number of included studies, quality/level of evidence, and main findings).

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 3138 studies, of which 18 were included for descriptive analysis (6 critical reviews, 4 clinical trials, 3 systematic reviews, 2 guideline reports, 2 retrospective studies, and 1 transversal study). The main instrument recommended for home care was the use of a conventional toothbrush associated with triclosan-containing toothpaste in addition to interproximal aids (brushes or floss) for all types of restorations. The use of irrigation instruments was also frequently considered. For professional maintenance, almost all studies reported a positive effect of regular recalls every 3 months during the first year, followed by less regular recalls according to the motivation of the patient and home care efficacy. At each recall, the professional should evaluate the patient history, oral tissues, implant, abutments, and restorations, as well as perform professional cleaning of the prostheses with appropriate instruments so that the implants and abutments may be preserved.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing an adequate hygiene protocol is indispensable for implant-supported restorations. To do so, the professional must guide and support the patient's home care by taking into account the patient's motivation and efficacy during the hygiene procedures. Also, for professional maintenance, the periodicity of recalls should be constant and include an evaluation of the condition of the restoration and adjacent tissues, followed by professional cleaning of prostheses, implants, and abutments, in addition to new instructions to improve patient home care.

An In Vivo Investigation of Non-Metallic vs. Metallic Hand Scalers on Zirconia Implant-Supported Crowns: A Year-Long Analysis of Peri-Implant Maintenance

This study examined whether the degree of abutment surface modification that may occur with regular periodontal instrumentation has a clinical impact in terms of increased plaque accumulation and increased peri-implant tissue inflammation on zirconia implant abutments. Thirteen patients who had zirconia implant crowns were recruited in this randomized clinical trial. Each patient acted as their control and had either the buccal or lingual surface of their screw-retained implant restoration scaled with a metallic scaler and the other surface with a non-metallic scaler at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Cytokine testing of the peri-implant crevicular fluid was completed at 0, 3, and 12 months for IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, or IFNγ. Implant crowns were removed at 12 months and evaluated under an atomic force microscope for the average roughness (Ra). The implant crowns were polished and re-inserted. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc tests were conducted with a significance level of α = 0.05. Significant differences in surface roughness (Ra) were observed between the metallic and non-metallic scalers. The median Ra values were 274.0 nm for metallic scalers and 147.1 nm for non-metallic scalers. However, there were no significant differences between the type of scaler used and the amount of clinical inflammation or cytokine production. Metallic scalers produced deeper, more aggressive surface alterations to the abutment/crown zirconia surface, but there was no statistically significant difference between the degree of surface alterations, amount of BOP, and the amplitude of cytokine inflammation produced.

Aesthetic Parameters and Patient-Perspective Assessment Tools for Maxillary Anterior Single Implants

Background

This review aimed to concisely describe the current aesthetic objective indices for a single-implant maxillary anterior crown. The secondary aim was to propose introducing a unified, standardized questionnaire for adequately collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in implant dentistry.

Materials and Methods

A literature review was conducted using both EMBASE/Ovid and MEDLINE/PubMed databases by combining keywords and Emtree/Mesh terms related to “Esthetics,” “Self-Assessment or Surveys and Questionnaires,” and “Single-Tooth Dental Implants.”

Results

The most meaningful aesthetic objective indices for single implants in the literature are the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), the Papilla Presence Index (PPI), Peri‐Implant and Crown Index (PICI), PES/White Esthetic Score (PES/WES), the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI), and a modified version of the ICAI (mod-ICAI) index. Clearly, PES/WES is still the most widely accepted tool. It is encouraging to observe that there is an increasing tendency in recent years to report PROMs more frequently in the implant dentistry literature. We proposed the implementation of a unified, standardized questionnaire using a self-administered visual analogue scale (VAS) scoring system, which evaluates overall satisfaction, comfort, tooth appearance, gingival appearance, function, and hygiene complexity. This tool should be validated in the oral implantology research context for its regular implementation or further development.

Conclusions

Conducting qualitative studies among dental implant patients who received few implants or single-tooth implant reconstructions in the aesthetic zone may help dental researchers understand better how to efficiently develop and validate a quantitative instrument. This standard tool would reduce heterogeneity bias by providing comparable data between studies.

Diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases and maintenance care of patients with dental implants - Consensus report of working group 3

The following consensus report is based on four background reviews. The frequency of maintenance visits is based on patient risk indicators, homecare compliance and prosthetic design. Generally, a 6-month visit interval or shorter is preferred. At these visits, peri-implant probing, assessment of bleeding on probing and, if warranted, a radiographic examination is performed. Diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis requires: (i) bleeding or suppuration on gentle probing with or without increased probing depth compared with previous examinations; and (ii) no bone loss beyond crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodelling. Diagnosis of peri-implantitis requires: (i) bleeding and/or suppuration on gentle probing; (ii) an increased probing depth compared with previous examinations; and (iii) bone loss beyond crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodelling. If diagnosis of disease is established, the inflammation should be resolved. Non-surgical therapy is always the first choice. Access and motivation for optimal oral hygiene are key. The patient should have a course of mechanical therapy and, if a smoker, be encouraged not to smoke. Non-surgical mechanical therapy and oral hygiene reinforcement are useful in treating peri-implant mucositis. Power-driven subgingival air-polishing devices, Er: YAG lasers, metal curettes or ultrasonic curettes with or without plastic sleeves can be used to treat peri-implantitis. Such treatment usually provides clinical improvements such as reduced bleeding tendency, and in some cases a pocket-depth reduction of ≤ 1 mm. In advanced cases, however, complete resolution of the disease is unlikely.