Prognostic factors associated with implant loss, disease progression or favorable outcomes after peri-implantitis surgical therapy

The economic and societal impact of periodontal and peri-implant diseases

Periodontal and peri-implant diseases result from a chronic inflammatory response to dysbiotic microbial communities and are characterized by inflammation in the soft tissue and the ensuing progressive destruction of supporting bone, resulting in tooth or implant loss. These diseases' high prevalence, multifactorial etiology, extensive treatment costs, and significant detriment to patients' quality-of-life underscore their status as a critical public health burden. This review delineates the economic and sociocultural ramifications of periodontal and peri-implant diseases on patient welfare and healthcare economics. We delve into the implications of diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, and managing destructive tissue consequences, contrasting these aspects with healthy patients.

Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis - A retrospective study

AIM

To evaluate long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of non-reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred forty-nine patients (267 implants) were surgically treated for peri-implantitis and followed for an average of 7.0 (SD: 3.6) years. The primary outcome was implant loss. Additional bone loss and surgical retreatment were secondary outcomes. Patient/implant characteristics, as well as clinical and radiographic parameters collected prior to initial surgery, were evaluated as potential predictors of implant loss. Flexible parametric survival models using restricted cubic spline functions were used; 5- and 10-year predicted rates of implant loss were calculated according to different scenarios.

RESULTS

Fifty-three implants (19.9%) in 35 patients (23.5%) were lost during the observation period. Implant loss occurred after a mean period of 4.4 (SD: 3.0) years and was predicted by implant surface characteristics (modified surface; HR 4.5), implant length (HR 0.8 by mm), suppuration at baseline (HR 2.7) and disease severity (baseline bone loss: HR 1.2 by mm). Estimates of 5- and 10-year implant loss ranged from 1% (best prognostic scenario; initial bone loss <40% of implant length, turned implant surface and absence of suppuration on probing (SoP)) to 63% (worst prognostic scenario; initial bone loss ≥60% of implant length, modified implant surface and SoP) and from 3% to 89%, respectively. Surgical retreatment was performed at 65 implants (24.3%) in 36 patients (24.2%) after a mean time period of 4.5 (3.1) years. In all, 59.5% of implants showed additional bone loss, were surgically retreated or lost.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence of disease is common following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The strongest predictor for implant loss was implant surface characteristics. Implant length as well as suppuration and disease severity at baseline were also relevant factors.

Selecting biomaterials in the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis is a pathogenic inflammatory condition characterized by progressive bone loss and clinical inflammation that may compromise the stability of dental implants. Therapeutic modalities have been advocated to arrest the disorder and to establish peri-implant health. Reconstructive therapy is indicated for bone defects exhibiting contained/angular components. This therapeutic modality is based upon the application of the biological and technical principles of periodontal regeneration. Nonetheless, the comparative efficacy of reconstructive therapy and nonreconstructive modalities remains unclear. Therefore, the aim of this narrative review is to address major clinical concerns regarding the efficacy, effectiveness, and feasibility of using biomaterials in peri-implantitis therapy. In particular, the use of bone grafting materials, barrier membranes, and biologics is comprehensively explored.

Predictive factors for the treatment success of peri-implantitis: a protocol for a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Peri-implantitis, a common biological complication of dental implant, has attracted considerable attention due to its increasing prevalence and limited treatment efficacy. Previous studies have reported several risk factors associated with the onset of peri-implantitis (eg, history of periodontitis, poor plaque control and smoking). However, inadequate data are available on the association between these risk factors and successful outcome after peri-implantitis therapy. This prospective cohort study aims to identify the local and systemic predictive factors for the treatment success of peri-implantitis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A single-centre cohort study will be conducted by recruiting 275 patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Sociodemographic variables, healthy lifestyles and systemic disorders will be obtained using questionnaires. In addition, clinical and radiographic examinations will be conducted at baseline and follow-up visits. Treatment success is defined as no bleeding on probing on more than one point, no suppuration, no further marginal bone loss (≥0.5 mm) and probing pocket depth ≤5 mm at the 12-month follow-up interval. After adjustment for age, sex and socioeconomic status, potential prognostic factors related to treatment success will be identified using multivariable logistic regression models.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This cohort study in its current version (2.0, 15 July 2022) is in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of Stomatological Hospital, Southern Medical University (EC-CT-(2022)34). The publication will be on behalf of the study site.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2200066262.

Comprehensive treatment protocol for peri-implantitis: an up-to date narrative review of the literature

This narrative review describes up-to-date treatment options for peri-implantitis and proposes a treatment protocol and flowchart based on the current scientific evidence. Peri-implantitis treatment should be based on the phased treatment protocol for periodontitis, which is a continuous flow of decisions for extraction, nonsurgical and surgical treatments with step-by-step re-evaluation. The protocol's goals are to fulfill the success criteria for peri-implantitis treatment (probing depth of ≤5 mm, and absence of bleeding on probing, suppuration, and progressive bone loss) and to halt disease progression. Fixtures with peri-implantitis can initially be classified as failed or failing. A failed implant needs to be removed. In contrast, nonsurgical and surgical treatments can be applied to a failing implant. Nonsurgical treatment should be the initial treatment for failing implants; however, sole nonsurgical treatment was regarded as inefficient for peri-implantitis. Recent studies have found that the adjunctive use of antibiotics to nonsurgical debridement increased the success of nonsurgical treatment for peri-implantitis. Surgical treatments can be classified into resective, access, and reconstructive surgeries. The technique should be selected according to the patient's bone defect configuration, which relate to regenerative potential. Various combinations of decontamination methods (e.g., mechanical, chemical, and pharmacological approaches) are required to achieve absolute surface decontamination. Clinicians should select an appropriate surface decontamination strategy according to the purpose of surgery. After signs of disease disappear and its progression is halted through active peri-implantitis treatment, it is necessary to enroll patients into maintenance programs. Compliance of patients with the maintenance program reduces the recurrence of peri-implantitis and sustains clinical success after treatment. Maintenance visits should include professional plaque control and hygiene care reinforcement for patients, and their interval should be set according to individual peri-implantitis risk. Clinicians should remind that peri-implantitis treatment is not a single procedure, but rather a continuing cycle of treatment and re-evaluation.

Stability of peri-implantitis surgical reconstructive therapy-a (> 2 years) follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This follow-up study aimed to report the 24- and 30-month outcomes of a cohort previously enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on surgical reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with surgical reconstructive therapy with or without the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser. Within-group and between-group comparisons were tested with mixed model with repeated measures.

RESULTS

Regarding peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) reduction (control vs. laser test group) between 6 months (- 1.85 vs. - 2.65 mm) and 30 months (- 1.84 vs. - 3.04 mm), the laser group showed statistically significant changes but not the control group. In terms of radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) at 6 months (- 1.1 vs. - 1.46 mm) to 24 months (- 1.96 vs. - 2.82 mm), both groups showed statistical difference compared to baseline. The six explanted implants all were featured by severe peri-implantitis and mostly with no or limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm) at baseline and membrane exposure after surgery. Among the 15 retained cases, eight cases achieved more than 50% peri-implant bone level gain.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation and follow-up time frame of this trial, the outcome of the surgical reconstructive therapy sustained or improved in most of the cases. However, 25% of the implants with severe peri-implantitis failed 2 years after the surgical reconstructive therapy. The use of Er:YAG laser favors PPD reduction in the longer term up to 30 months.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Longer-term follow-up on reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis revealed sustained or improved stability in certain cases, but the survival of implants with severe peri-implantitis has its limitation, especially when there is limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm or no KT).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03127228 and HUM00160290.

Influence of crestal and sub-crestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases: a 5-year retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the influence of crestal and subcrestal implant position on development of peri-implant diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as a retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses were allocated in two groups: with the shoulder (i) placed in sub-crestal level and (ii) placed at bone level. For each patient, the following clinical variables were assessed: FMPS, FMBS, PlI, BOP, and PD. After prothesis delivery, an intraoral radiograph was obtained; this exam was performed also at 5 years of observation period.

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference was found in terms of FMPS and FMBS at baseline and after 5 years follow-up (P < 0.05). A statistically significant difference was assessed between PD of control group and test group (P = 0.042). Patient-based analysis showed a 25.6% of peri-implant mucositis and 32.6% of peri-implantitis for implants placed with the shoulder in crestal position, while for implants inserted in sub-crestal position the percentage of peri-implant-mucositis and peri-implantitis were 19%; no statistically significant difference was found between groups after 5 years (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of the present study, the clinical and radiographic outcomes showed that the percentage of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was not statistically significant for both groups after 5 years follow-up.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The outcomes of present study clinically demonstrated that a deep position of implant shoulder did not provide any benefits. On the contrary, it may be considered a possible risk indicator for implant diseases.

Effect of alveolar ridge preservation on peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence: A multicenter, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a procedure with the aim to reduce bone resorption that occurs after tooth extraction, facilitating the following implant placement. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis around implants inserted in sites treated with ARP and to investigate possible risk factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who received at least one dental implant inserted in a grafted socket were considered eligible for this study. Patients were recalled for a follow-up visit; medical history, clinical and demographic data were collected. Univariate logistic regression analyses have been performed for both implant-level and patient-level variables. Indeed, moderation analysis was used to investigate the indirect relationship between age and marginal bone level.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients who received 61 implants were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Thirty-three implants were classified as "healthy" (54.1%), 23 implants showed signs of peri-implant mucositis (37.7%), and 5 implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis (8.2%). Data analyzed at the patient level showed that 49% of the patients were healthy, 45.1% of the patients had mucositis and 5.9% of the patients were affected by peri-implantitis. Mandibular sites and type III grafted sockets showed a significant association with peri-implantitis; in addition, a history of periodontitis and an increase in age showed higher risks of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants inserted in grafted sockets showed favorable rates of healthy implants in the long term.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The ridge preservation procedures do not seem to increase the risk of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis.

Biomaterial engineering surface to control polymicrobial dental implant-related infections: focusing on disease modulating factors and coatings development

INTRODUCTION

Peri-implantitis is the leading cause of dental implant loss and is initiated by a polymicrobial dysbiotic biofilm formation on the implant surface. The destruction of peri-implant tissue by the host immune response and the low effectiveness of surgical or non-surgical treatments highlight the need for new strategies to prevent, modulate and/or eliminate biofilm formation on the implant surface. Currently, several surface modifications have been proposed using biomolecules, ions, antimicrobial agents, and topography alterations.

AREAS COVERED

Initially, this review provides an overview of the etiopathogenesis and host- and material-dependent modulating factors of peri-implant disease. In addition, a critical discussion about the antimicrobial surface modification mechanisms and techniques employed to modify the titanium implant material is provided. Finally, we also considered the future perspectives on the development of antimicrobial surfaces to narrow the bridge between idea and product and favor the clinical application possibility.

EXPERT OPINION

Antimicrobial surface modifications have demonstrated effective results; however, there is no consensus about the best modification strategy and in-depth information on the safety and longevity of the antimicrobial effect. Modified surfaces display recurring challenges such as short-term effectiveness, the burst release of drugs, cytotoxicity, and lack of reusability. Stimulus-responsive surfaces seem to be a promising strategy for a controlled and precise antimicrobial effect, and future research should focus on this technology and study it from models that better mimic clinical conditions.

Effect of laser-assisted reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis on protein biomarkers and bacterial load

OBJECTIVES

This randomized clinical trial assessed changes in protein biomarker levels and bacterial profiles after surgical reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis and investigated whether the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser impacts protein biomarker and microbial outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four patients received surgical reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis with guided bone regeneration following mechanical debridement with (test) or without (control) the adjunctive irradiation of Er:YAG laser. Bacterial and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected over 6 months and analyzed with bacterial qPCR and luminex multiplex assays.

RESULTS

Surgical reconstructive treatment significantly affected the concentration of PICF protein biomarkers, including a 50% reduction in IL-1β between 2 and 4 weeks (p < .0001). Both MMP-9 (p < .001) and VEGF (p < .05) levels steadily decreased after treatment. In the laser group, the peak increase in IL-1β was attenuated at 2 weeks, followed by significant reduction in MMP-9 (p < .01) and VEGF (p < .05) across all follow-up appointments compared with the control nonlaser group. The total bacterial load was reduced 2 weeks after treatment, especially in the laser group, but recolonized to presurgical levels after 4 weeks in both groups (p < .01). The composition of selective pathogens varied significantly over the follow-up, but recolonization patterns did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis significantly altered PICF protein biomarker and microbial levels during the healing process. The adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser significantly modulated the inflammatory response through reduced levels of MMP-9 and VEGF during the postsurgical period. The bacterial load was reduced immediately after therapy, but recolonization was observed by 4 weeks in both groups.

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Due to the clinical challenges involved in successfully treating peri-implantitis, it is imperative to identify patient- and implant-level risk factors for its prevention. The main goal of this retrospective longitudinal radiographic and clinical study was to investigate whether interproximal radiographic implant thread exposure after physiological bone remodeling may be a risk factor for peri-implantitis. The secondary goal was to evaluate several other potential risk indicators.

METHODS

Of 4325 active dental school patients having implants placed, 165 partially edentulous adults (77 men, 88 women) aged 30-91 with ≥2 years of follow-up upon implant restoration were included. Implants with ≥1 interproximal thread exposed (no bone-to-implant contact) (n = 98, 35%) constituted the test group and those without exposed threads (n = 182, 65%) the control group. Descriptive, binary, and multivariate regression analyses were evaluated for goodness of fit. Wald tests were used to evaluate for significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 280 implants (98 test, 182 control), 8 (2.9%) failed over a mean follow-up period of 7.67 (±2.63) years, and 27 implants (19 test, 8 control) developed peri-implantitis, with the exposed group having eight-fold (7.82 times) adjusted greater odds than the non-exposed. The risk increased four-fold (3.77 times) with each thread exposed. No other patient- or implant-related potentially confounding risk factors were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Exposed interproximal implant threads after physiologic bone remodeling may be an independent risk indicator for incident peri-implantitis. Hence, clinicians should closely monitor patients with implant threads that have no bone-to-implant contact for incident peri-implantitis.

Full Arch Implant-Prosthetic Rehabilitation in Patients with Type I Diabetes Mellitus: Retrospective Clinical Study with 10 Year Follow-Up

The aim of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate and compare implant survival, marginal bone loss, and clinical and prosthetic complications in healthy patients and patients with type I diabetes undergoing full arch implant-prosthetic rehabilitation. A total of 47 patients needing total fixed rehabilitation of one or both arches were enrolled for this study. Based on the absence of any systemic diseases (Group A) or the presence of type I diabetes (Group B), the sample was divided into two groups. According to the grade of bone atrophy in the posterior region, patients received full arch rehabilitation (of one or both jaws) with 6 axial implants or, if the residual posterior bone height was insufficient, All-on-Four rehabilitation and a total 236 dental implants were placed. Follow-up visits were performed 1 week after surgery, at 3 and 6 months and then once a year for the next 10 years. No statistically significant differences between groups were recorded about implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, or clinical and prosthetic complications. However, concerning complications, post-surgical bleeding and wound infection were recorded in Group A more than in Group B. In cases of compensated diabetes compensation, implant placement could be considered a safe procedure.

Quantitative Evaluation of Inflammatory Markers in Peri-Implantitis and Periodontitis Tissues: Digital vs. Manual Analysis—A Proof of Concept Study

Background and Objectives: In dentistry, the assessment of the histomorphometric features of periodontal (PD) and peri-implant (PI) lesions is important to evaluate their underlying pathogenic mechanism. The present study aimed to compare manual and digital methods of analysis in the evaluation of the inflammatory biomarkers in PI and PD lesions. Materials and Methods: PD and PI inflamed soft tissues were excised and processed for histological and immunohistochemical analyses for CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, CD15+, CD20+, CD68+, and CD138+. The obtained slides were acquired using a digital scanner. For each marker, 4 pictures per sample were extracted and the area fraction of the stained tissue was computed both manually using a 594-point counting grid (MC) and digitally using a dedicated image analysis software (DC). To assess the concordance between MC and DC, two blinded observers analysed a total of 200 pictures either with good quality of staining or with non-specific background noise. The inter and intraobserver concordance was evaluated using the intraclass coefficient and the agreement between MC and DC was assessed using the Bland–Altman plot. The time spent analysing each picture using the two methodologies by both observers was recorded. Further, the amount of each marker was compared between PI and PD with both methodologies. Results: The inter- and intraobserver concordance was excellent, except for images with background noise analysed using DC. MC and DC showed a satisfying concordance. DC was performed in half the time compared to MC. The morphological analysis showed a larger inflammatory infiltrate in PI than PD lesions. The comparison between PI and PD showed differences for CD68+ and CD138+ expression. Conclusions: DC could be used as a reliable and time-saving procedure for the immunohistochemical analysis of PD and PI soft tissues. When non-specific background noise is present, the experience of the pathologist may be still required.