The efficacy of reconstructive therapy in the surgical management of peri-implantitis: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To assess whether guided bone regeneration (GBR) treatment of peri-implantitis-related bony defects could improve healing compared to open flap debridement (OFD) at 36 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received OFD (control group [CG]) and 34 GBR treatment (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 36 months.

RESULTS

Fifty individuals attended a supportive peri-implant therapy program and completed the 36-month follow-up. GBR treatment resulted in an RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm following OFD (p = .18). No difference was found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC or PROs between the groups. Successful treatment (no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% in TG and 20% in CG (p = .053). Treatment results obtained at 12 months were generally maintained up to 36 months. No significant changes were noticed between 12 and 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

At 36 months, treatment results obtained at 1 year were sustained following both GBR and OFD in patients attending supportive peri-implant therapy. GBR resulted in more RDF and higher composite treatment success rate than OFD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier [NCT02375750]).

Implant-supported prostheses following the biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) after implantoplasty procedures: A dental technique

Esthetic concerns may appear on implant-supported prostheses after peri-implantitis treatment, such as implantoplasty procedures that includes the thread removal and surface smoothening. A technique for restoring implants that have been treated for peri-implantitis using an implantoplasty procedure combined with the detoxification of the implant surfaces is described. The technique involves the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis following the biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) and aims to solve esthetic complications after this peri-implantitis treatment approach.

Prediabetes and poorly controlled type-2 diabetes as risk indicators for peri-implant diseases:A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The study answers the PECO question: "In adults with dental implants (P), do subjects suffering from type-2 diabetes or prediabetes (E) have worse peri-implant conditions (O) than subjects without type-2 diabetes and prediabetes (C)?". Prediabetes (5.7-6.4 % HbA1c), and the different qualities of glycemic control in type-2 diabetes; well-controlled (>8 % HbA1c), and poorly controlled (>8 % HbA1c) individuals; were classified according to the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association.

DATA

Predefined search keys were used with search terms including: Dental implant, diabetes mellitus, glycemic control and HbA1c.

SOURCES

An electronic search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were conducted without any filters or language restrictions. Additionally, manual search of the reference lists were carried out to identify all relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria were cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies that answerd our PECO question with at least 1 year of follow-up. From a total of 2660 records, 35 articles (1761 individuals) were included in the analysis. Meta-analytic difference in means for crestal bone loss was 1.2 mm [95 % CI=0.4; 2.1] in patients with prediabetes, 1.8 mm [CI=1.0; 2.7] in poorly controlled patients, whereas 0.4 mm [CI=-0.3; 1.1] in well-controlled individuals. Meta-regression showed that 1 % increase in HbA1c increased crestal bone loss by 0.24 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the study, patients with poorly controlled type-2 diabetes or prediabetes may have worse peri-implant conditions compared to patients without diabetes and well-controlled type-2 diabetes. Well-controlled type-2 diabetes is not a risk indicator for peri-implant diseases.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Clinicians should measure blood HbA1c levels when planning implant-supported restorations, thus patients with undiagnosed or poorly controlled type-2 diabetes can be identified, that allows for glycemic level adjustment prior to dental implant surgery, ensuring peri-implant health. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (CRD42022375263).

Impact of peri-implant keratinized mucosa width on the long-term reconstructive outcomes of peri-implantitis: A retrospective analysis with a follow-up up to 10 years

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of mid-buccal peri-implant keratinized mucosa width (KMW) ≥2 mm or peri-implant KMW >0 mm and <2 mm on the long-term outcomes of peri-implantitis reconstructive treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine patients (40 implants; mean follow-up: 9.2 ± 1.4 years) with at least one implant affected by peri-implantitis and surgically treated through a reconstructive procedure followed by a submerged healing were included. Patients were categorized according to their initial KMW: Group 1 (KMW ≥2 mm) and Group 2 (KMW >0 mm and <2 mm). Peri-implant clinical and radiographic parameters and a dedicated composite outcome were assessed at different follow-up visits during supportive peri-implant therapy for up to 10 years. Regression analyses were utilized to identify possible risk/predictive indicators for probing pocket depth (PPD) change and treatment success at the latest follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean PPD did not exhibit any statistical difference from the baseline to the latest follow-up between the groups at both patient and implant levels. Long-term treatment success was 46.6% (Group 1) and 42.6% (Group 2) at patient level, it was 42.8% (Group 1) and 33.3% (Group 2), respectively, at implant level (p > 0.05). Group 1 demonstrated significantly higher vertical defect depth reduction than Group 2 (p = 0.018). Presence of buccal bony wall and mean PPD at the baseline were found to be associated with mean PPD change, while KMW at 6 months following surgery was identified as the only significant indicator for treatment success (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Implants with KMW ≥2 mm did not present significantly better long-term clinical outcomes following reconstructive therapy than those exhibiting KMW >0 mm and <2 mm. However, KMW values at the end of healing phase following a submerged approach had a significant impact on long-term treatment success.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis

As utilisation of dental implants continues to rise, so does the incidence of biological complications. When peri-implantitis has already caused extensive bone resorption, the dentist faces the dilemma of which therapy is the most appropriate to maintain the implant. Since non-surgical approaches of peri-implantitis have shown limited effectiveness, the present paper describes different surgical treatment modalities, underlining their indications and limitations. The primary goal in the management of peri-implantitis is to decontaminate the surface of the infected implant and to eliminate deep peri-implant pockets. For this purpose, access flap debridement, with or without resective procedures, has shown to be effective in a large number of cases. These surgical treatments, however, may be linked to post-operative recession of the mucosal margin. In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and to achieve re-osseointegration.

Disease recurrence during supportive therapy following peri-implantitis treatment: A retrospective study

AIM

Supportive therapy is key to prevent disease recurrence after peri-implantitis treatment. The primary objective was to quantify disease recurrence during supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) after peri-implantitis treatment. A secondary objective was to assess the success/failure of cumulative interceptive supportive therapy (CIST) after peri-implantitis treatment.

METHODS

Compliers (whether regular or erratic) with SPIT after peri-implantitis treatment during ≥12 months were retrospectively evaluated. CIST was prescribed whenever residual pockets ≥6 mm concomitant with profuse bleeding on probing (disease recurrence) were identified. Patient- and implant-related factors were analyzed to explore their associations with disease recurrence and the need for CIST.

RESULTS

Disease recurrence was considered in 28 patients (40 implants). Of these, 14 patients (23 implants) further demonstrated radiographic evidence of progressive bone loss (≥1 mm). This represented an overall disease recurrence following peri-implantitis treatment of ~20% and ~ 10% at patient and implant levels, respectively. Smokers, patients diagnosed at baseline with periodontitis grade C, and males were significantly more prone to exhibit recurrence. Patients undergoing CIST due to instability were not likely to respond favorably (~70% continued to exhibit residual pockets).

CONCLUSION

Disease recurrence during SPIT following peri-implantitis treatment on selected cases is ~20%. Patients undergoing CIST due to instability are not likely to respond favorably.

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.

Etiology, pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implantitis: A European perspective

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants. It is characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and progressive loss of supporting bone. Over the last 30 years, peri-implantitis has become a major disease burden in dentistry. An understanding of the diagnosis, etiology and pathogenesis, epidemiology, and treatment of peri-implantitis must be a central component in undergraduate and postgraduate training programs in dentistry. In view of the strong role of European research in periodontology and implant dentistry, the focus of this review was to address peri-implantitis from a European perspective. One component of the work was to summarize new and reliable data on patients with dental implants to underpin the relevance of peri-implantitis from a population perspective. The nature of the peri-implantitis lesion was evaluated through results presented in preclinical models and evaluations of human biopsy material together with an appraisal of the microbiological characteristics. An overview of strategies and outcomes presented in clinical studies on nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is discussed with a particular focus on end points of therapy and recommendations presented in the S3 level Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Periimplant Mucositis and Periimplantitis: An Overview and Related Controversial Issues

Periimplant mucositis and periimplantitis are common complications of dental implant. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the 2017 World Workshop's new definition, clinical and radiographic presentation, pathogenesis, risk factors, and classification of periimplant diseases. Also, the authors discuss various types of instruments, materials, and techniques commonly used for treatment of nonsurgical and surgical periimplantitis. Lastly, the authors include some controversial topics surrounding this subject.

Peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation: A critical update

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition induced by bacterial biofilm that affects the soft and hard tissues surrounding dental implants, compromising the success of implant therapy. Recent studies have highlighted the potential links between peri-implant health and systemic inflammation, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, psychological stress, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and infectious diseases such as COVID-19. As an inflammatory disease, peri-implantitis may trigger systemic inflammation by elevating circulating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which could have unknown impacts on overall health. While the relationship between periodontal health and systemic conditions is better understood, the association between peri-implant disease and systemic inflammation remains unclear. Therefore, this comprehensive review aims to summarize the most recent evidence on the relationship between peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation, focusing on biological complications, microbiology, and biomarkers. This review aims to enhance our understanding of the links between peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation and promote further research in this field by discussing the latest insights and clinical implications.

Supportive care for the prevention of disease recurrence/progression following peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of supportive care provision, frequency and protocol in patients treated for peri-implantitis, as reported in prospective and retrospective studies of at least 3-years duration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of three electronic databases was undertaken up to 21 July 2022 and supplemented by hand-search to identify studies that included participants treated for peri-implantitis and followed for at least 3 years. Owing to high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not appropriate, and therefore, data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines for reporting were followed.

RESULTS

The search identified 2596 studies. Of 270 records selected during screening, 255 were excluded through independent review and 15 studies (10 prospective and 5 retrospective, with at least 20 patients) were retained for qualitative assessments. Study designs, population characteristics, supportive care protocols and reported outcomes varied markedly. Thirteen of the 15 studies had low risk of bias. Supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) following different surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols and with recall intervals varying between 2 months and annually resulted in peri-implant tissue stability (no disease recurrence or progression) ranging from 24.4% to 100% at patient level and from 28.3% to 100% at implant level. Sevenhundred and eighty-five patients with 790 implants were included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of SPIC following peri-implantitis therapy may prevent disease recurrence or progression. Insufficient evidence is available to identify (i) a specific supportive care protocol for secondary prevention of peri-implantitis, (ii) the effect of adjunctive local antiseptic agents in the secondary prevention of peri-implantitis and (iii) the impact of frequency of supportive care measures. Prospective, randomised, controlled studies designed to evaluate supportive care protocols are needed in future.

Peri-implantitis as the consequence of errors in implant therapy

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. It is a highly prevalent disease, as extensively estimated by large-population, cross-sectional studies. As peri-implant diseases represent opportunistic infections, it is reasonable to assume that nonideal conditions, local and/or general, may favor the progression of peri-implant inflammation. Some of these conditions could be a result of poor planning and/or inadequate execution of any step of the entire process treatment. This article describes the major possible factors in implant therapy that may lead to peri-implantitis. For some of these (ie, inappropriate patient selection, insufficient periodontal therapy, lack of diagnosis and management of peri-implant mucositis, erratic supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) there is a good level of evidence, whereas for others (ie, wrong implant placement, poor postoperative care, inadequate prosthetic reconstruction, lack of assessment and management of peri-implant soft-tissue deficiencies) there is little scientific evidence. More research is therefore needed to clearly identify the errors and/or complications possibly leading to peri-implantitis, particularly over the long term.

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Survival analysis of implants after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis based on bone loss severity and surgical technique: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Few trials have compared the results of surgical treatment for peri-implantitis based on severity of peri-implantitis and surgical method. This study investigated the survival rate of implants based on type of surgical method used and initial severity of peri-implantitis. Classification of severity was determined based on bone loss rate relative to fixture length.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent peri-implantitis surgery from July 2003 to April 2021 were identified. Classification of peri-implantitis was divided into 3 groups (stage 1: bone loss < 25% (of fixture length), stage 2: 25% < bone loss < 50%, stage 3: bone loss > 50%) and performance of resective or regenerative surgery was investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox hazards proportional models were used to analyze the cumulative survival rate of implants. Median survival time, predicted mean survival time, hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Based on Kaplan-Meier analysis, 89 patients and 227 implants were included, and total median postoperative survival duration was 8.96 years. Cumulative survival rates for stage 1, 2, and 3 were 70.7%, 48.9%, and 21.3%, respectively. The mean survival time for implants in stage 1, 2, and 3 was 9.95 years, 7.96 years, and 5.67 years, respectively, with statistically significant difference (log-rank p-value < 0.001). HRs for stage 2 and stage 3 were 2.25 and 4.59, respectively, with stage 1 as reference. Significant difference was not found in survival time between resective and regenerative surgery groups in any peri-implantitis stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial bone loss rate relative to the fixture length significantly correlated with the outcome after peri-implantitis surgery, demonstrating a notable difference in the long-term survival rate. Difference was not found between resective surgery and regenerative surgery in implant survival time. Bone loss rate could be utilized as a reliable diagnostic tool for evaluating prognosis after surgical treatment, regardless of surgical method used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered. (KCT0008225).

Critical review on quality of methodology and recommendations of clinical practice guidelines for peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is of high prevalence with the popularity of dental implants nowadays. Guidelines or consensus have been developed in succession, and we are little-known about their quality. The objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality of these guidelines and analyze the consistency of the clinical recommendations.

METHODS

We searched for guidelines or consensus on prevention, diagnosis, and/or treatment of peri-implantitis through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library until January 15th, 2022. In addition, we also searched the websites of the American Dental Association, International Team for Implantology, FDI World Dental Federation, and some guideline collection databases. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II methodological quality instrument was used to assess the selected guidelines. Furthermore, we described the consistency of recommendations across the included guidelines.

RESULTS

In total, 15 guidelines were included. The mean values of the six domains score all below 50%. The mean scores of Applicability were lowest (mean:15%, range:4-29%). As to the overall quality, eleven (73%) were recommended after being modified, and four (27%) were not recommended. Among the clinical recommendations, 53 (67.09%) are for treatment of peri-implantitis, 13 (16.46%) for monitoring issue, 7 (8.86%) for diagnosis, 3 (3.80%) for the disease prevention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving methodology quality and strengthening clinical evidence is essential in the future guideline development in a range of disciplines for improving the treatment effectiveness of people with peri-implantitis. And there is a lack of integrated guidelines in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Outcome indicators of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a prospective case series analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify patient and implant indicators influencing the non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis at 6 months of follow-up.

METHODS

This case series involved patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis according to the 2017 World Workshop criteria. Non-surgical therapy consisted of mechanical debridement of the peri-implant pockets combined with metronidazole 500 mg 3 times a day for 7 days. At baseline and at 6 months, clinical and radiographic variables were collected to calculate treatment success (probing pocket depth reduction to 5 mm without bleeding on probing or < 5 mm irrespective of bleeding on probing at all implant sites, and lack of bone loss progression). The primary outcome was treatment success (%) at 6 months. The influence of the patient and implant/prosthetic variables upon disease resolution was assessed through simple and multiple logistic regression analyses at patient and implant level, using generalized estimation equations models.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients and 107 implants were analyzed at 6 months. Disease resolution was established in 25.7% of the patients and 24.1% of the implants. Patients with stage IV and grade C periodontitis, inadequate oral hygiene at baseline, and wide diameter (≥ 4.5 mm) presented significantly greater treatment failure, whereas smokers and former smokers demonstrated a tendency toward failure. At 6 months, there was a significant decrease in probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing of 1.08 ± 1.06 mm and 14%, respectively. Radiographically, a significant gain in marginal bone level of 0.43 ± 0.56 mm was observed.

CONCLUSION

Disease resolution after non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is negatively influenced by the loss of support of the adjacent periodontium, poor baseline oral hygiene, and wide diameter implants (≥ 4.5 mm).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study helps to discriminate the clinical situations in which non-surgical treatment is less likely to achieve treatment success at short term.

Adjunctive locally and systemically delivered antimicrobials during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review

AIM

To answer the following PICOS question: "In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with adjunctive systemic or local antimicrobials, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in terms of pocket probing depth reduction, as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 6 months of follow-up?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted. Reduction in mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was the primary outcome. Secondary clinical outcomes were changes in suppuration (%), changes in bleeding on probing (BOP) (%), marginal bone level changes (mm), disease resolution (%), and implant/prosthesis loss (%). Patient-reported outcome measures, possible adverse effects, and oral-health-related quality of life were also extracted if such data were available.

RESULTS

Four RCTs assessing the use of locally (two RCTs) and systemically (two RCTs) administered antimicrobial adjuncts to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with 6-36-month follow-up, were included. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of interventions between the studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. A reduction in the mean PPD was observed following all the involved surgical treatments, irrespective of the addition of antimicrobials. Except for the effect of systemic antimicrobials on marginal bone level changes and local antimicrobials on BOP, the effect of systemic and local antimicrobials was equivocal for all secondary outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited available evidence, the adjunctive use of the currently tested systemic or local antimicrobials during surgical therapy, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in patients with peri-implantitis does not seem to improve the clinical efficacy. With regard the use of systemic antimicrobials, only 50% of the cases showed disease resolution after 1 year. There is a lack of studies that consider the sole use of local antimicrobials. Therefore, their true effect remains unclear.

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri-implantitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of bone reconstructive procedures for the reduction of probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and suppuration in peri-implantitis-related bone defects at ≥12-month follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared bone reconstructive therapies to access flap surgery (AFS) (Focused Question-FQ 1), and RCTs, CCTs, and prospective case series that assessed the efficacy of reconstructive therapies (FQ 2). Meta-analysis was performed for FQ1 when more than three studies were identified, while for FQ2 a network was drawn based on RCTs with common treatment arms.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were identified for FQ1 while five RCTs and six prospective case series for FQ2. There was no significant difference in PPD change between AFS and reconstructive surgery (-0.387; p = .325) at 12 months. Furthermore, no clear differences in terms of PPD and BOP changes resulted from the different reconstructive therapies included in the network. Only a small percentage of treated cases with any modality achieved peri-implantitis resolution, as defined by different composite outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive surgery does not offer significant improvements in peri-implant clinical parameters as compared to AFS at 12 months. It was not possible to establish a hierarchy of efficacy among the different biomaterials employed for reconstructive surgery.

Tetracycline impregnated bone grafts in the management of peri-implantitis and guided bone regeneration around dental implants: A systematic review

Background

Rehabilitation of dental arches with the help of dental implants has been revolutionary and a significant part of research is devoted to increasing its success rate. One of the most common causes of failure of dental implants is peri-implantitis caused due to microbial invasion. Newer strategies are being adapted for the treatment of peri-implantits and recent surgical management with the help of antibiotic-impregnated bone grafts shows a promising future.

Aim and objectives

This study aimed to test the efficacy of bone grafts incorporating tetracycline and its derivatives in the treatment of peri-implantits and guided bone regeneration with the estimation of clinical and radiographic parameters.

Methods

A thorough search was made on eminent databases such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library database for published literature on tetracycline impregnated bone grafts used either in the management of peri-implantitis or for guided bone regeneration around dental implants.The measures of outcome were clinical attachment loss or probing depth around dental implants and radiographic bone height.

Results

Nine potentially eligible full-text published articles including case reports, case series, observational studies, and randomized controlled trials were selected for review. Most of the studies reviewed; reported a reduction in probing depth and an increase in bone height and density after placement of tetracycline bone grafts around the dental implant.

Conclusion

The incorporation of tetracycline into the bone grafts shows promising results as an agent of local delivery around dental implants in the management of peri-implantitis and for guided bone regeneration. Future trials are required to produce a body of evidence and to facilitate the translation of this procedure into clinical practice.

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis constitutes one of the most frequent late dental implant complications. The disease is initiated by bacterial infection; therefore, anti-infective peri-implantitis treatment strategies are required to arrest the progressive marginal bone loss and maintain the affected implant in function. Although nonsurgical treatment strategies appear to be of limited predictability, treatment outcomes have been frequently improved following surgical interventions.

PURPOSE

The present narrative review describes various surgical peri-implantitis treatment modalities, with respect to their indications, performance, and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present narrative review considered the most relevant studies in the field published in the English language.

RESULTS

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment approaches can be categorized as nonreconstrucive therapy, reconstructive therapy, and combined therapy (ie, reconstructive and resective therapy). In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and achieve reosseointegration.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the disease, the regenerative potential of the defetc and esthetic demands of the patient are the factors determining the surgical peri-implantitis treatment modality.

Reconstructive treatment of peri-implant defects-Results after three and five years

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis intraosseous defects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Peri-implant intraosseous defects were augmented using either an autogenous bone graft (AB) or a bovine-derived xenograft (BDX) in combination with a collagen membrane. Maintenance was provided every third month.

RESULTS

In the AB group, 16 patients with 25 implants remained at year five. In the BDX group, 23 patients with 38 implants remained. Between baseline and year 5, bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) scores were reduced in both groups (p < .001). In the AB and BDX groups, mean PPD between baseline and year five was reduced by 1.7 and 2.8 mm, respectively. The difference between groups was significant (p < .001). In the AB group, the mean bone level change at implant level between baseline and years three and five was-0,2 and -0.7 mm, respectively. In the BDX group, the mean bone level change at implant level between baseline and years three and five was 1.6 and 1.6 mm, respectively. The difference between the groups was significant (p < .001). Successful treatment (no bone loss, no probing pocket depth (PPD) > 5 mm, no suppuration, maximum one implant surface with bleeding on probing (BOP) at year five) was obtained in 9/25 implants (36%) in the AB group and in 29/37 implants (78.3%) in the BDX group.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implant defects using BDX resulted in more predictable outcomes than using autogenous bone over 5 years.

Minimal invasiveness in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis defects

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, clinically characterized by increased peri-implant probing pocket depth and progressive loss of supporting bone. Consequently, to arrest further disease progression and to increase the chance to obtain re-osseointegration, surgical reconstructive procedures have been adopted. In particular, following a paradigm gathered from periodontal therapy, recent protocols have underlined the importance of a minimally invasive approach to optimize the outcomes of therapy while minimizing the risks of postoperative complications. The present review summarizes the level of evidence on the surgical reconstructive protocols focusing on the new approaches aiming to minimize surgical trauma and patients' postoperative discomfort, underlining the pros and cons of each treatment modality.

Non-surgical mechanical therapy of peri-implantitis with or without repeated adjunctive diode laser application. A 6-month double-blinded randomized clinical trial

Objectives

The objective of this study is to investigate the outcomes following non‐surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis (PI) with or without adjunctive diode laser application.

Materials and methods

A double‐blinded randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in 25 subjects with 25 implants diagnosed with PI. Following curettage of granulation tissue, test implants (T) were treated with adjunctive application of a diode laser for 90 s (settings: 810 nm, 2.5 W, 50 Hz, 10 ms), while at control implants (C) non‐activated adjunctive diode laser was applied. The entire treatment procedure was performed at days 0 (i.e., baseline), 7 and 14. The primary outcome measure was change in mean pocket probing depth (PPD). Clinical and microbiological outcomes, as well as host‐derived inflammatory markers were evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months, while radiographic outcomes were assessed at baseline and at the 6‐month follow‐up.

Results

No statistically significant differences with respect to baseline patient characteristic were observed. After 6 months, both test and control implants yielded statistically significant PPD changes compared with baseline (T: 1.28 and C: 1.47 mm) but without statistically significant difference between groups (p = .381). No statistically significant changes in peri‐implant marginal bone levels were detected (p = .936). No statistically significant differences between test and control implants were observed with respect to microbiological and host‐derived parameters (p > .05). At the 6‐month follow‐up, treatment success was observed in 41.7% (n = 5) of test and 46.2% (n = 6) of control patients, respectively (p = .821).

Conclusion

Repeated adjunctive application of diode laser in the non‐surgical management of PI failed to provide significant benefits compared with mechanical instrumentation alone.

Efficacy of concentrated growth factor versus collagen membrane in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

Objectives

To compare the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of two different reconstructive surgical management of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute in combination with either concentrated growth factor (CGF) or collagen membrane (CM).

Material and methods

Fifty-one patients who had at least one implant presenting peri-implantitis with an intrabony defect were filled with a xenogenic bone grafting material and covered either CGF or CM. Clinical and radiographic assessments were carried out at baseline and postoperative years 1 and 3. Three different composite outcomes were defined to evaluate treatment success at a 3-year follow-up. The effects of possible prognostic indicators on treatment success were identified by using multilevel regression analysis.

Results

The changes in probing depth (PD) and radiographic vertical defect depth (VDD) between baseline and year 1 and baseline and year 3 presented significantly greater decreases for the CM group in comparison with the CGF group (p < 0.05). No significant differences between the two treatment modalities were demonstrated regarding treatment success outcomes. History of periodontitis, VDD at baseline, and the number of intrabony defect walls revealed significant impacts on treatment success (p = 0.033; OR = 3.50, p = 0.039; OR = 0.975, and p = 0.024; OR = 7.0 and p = 0.019;OR = 6.0, respectively).

Conclusions

CM in combination with a bone substitute seems to have slightly better outcomes compared to the CGF membranes in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. The history of periodontitis, baseline VDD, and peri-implant bone defect configuration could be possible predictors influencing treatment success.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04769609.

Clinical relevance

For the reconstruction of peri-implant bone defects, using a bone substitute in combination with a collagen membrane may show more favorable outcomes.

Influence of titanium implant macrodesign on peri-implantitis occurrence: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether implant macrodesign parameters interacting with implant time in function (Tf) could influence the peri-implantitis occurrence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and two patients (55.17 ± 11.2 years old) with diagnosed early/moderate peri-implantitis around endosseous implants with implant-supported prosthetics reconstruction (n = 139) were recruited. Implant macrodesign (implant shape, thread number, implant collar), clinical parameters (peri-implant probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), keratinised tissue width (KTW), plaque index, bleeding on probe), implant placement localisation and region, and Tf were assessed and compared.

RESULTS

Peri-implantitis occurred approximately 6.1 ± 3.38 years after implant loading. There was a significant positive correlation between the implant macrodesign and Tf. Peri-implantitis rates were statistically significantly higher in implants with a cylindric shape and triple-thread in the posterior part of the mandible (p = 0.037 and 0.012, respectively). The thread number and implant shape interacting with Tf showed statistically significant influences on CAL and PPD increase (p < 0.05). Results indicated a statistically positive interaction between Tf and KTW decrease around the implants with microthreaded collar (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Peri-implantitis might be presented as a time-dependent disease. Implant-based factors, such as Tf and implant macrodesign, could influence peri-implantitis occurrence, exacerbate clinical parameters, and promote progressive bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Peri-implantitis can be affected by implant macrodesign and Tf. The implant body shape, thread number, and design of the implant collar may be considered peri-implantitis-related risk indicators that should be taken into account in proper implant planning and therapy.

Global DNA Methylation in Dental Implant Failure Due to Peri-Implantitis: An Exploratory Clinical Pilot Study

Background: Peri-implantitis (PIT) is highly prevalent in patients with dental implants and is a challenging condition to treat due to the limited outcomes reported for non-surgical and surgical therapies. Therefore, epigenetic therapeutics might be of key importance to treat PIT. However, developing epigenetic therapeutics is based on understanding the relationship between epigenetics and disease. To date, there is still scarce knowledge about the relationship between epigenetic modifications and PIT, which warrants further investigations. Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of global DNA methylation associated with implant failure (IF) due to PIT compared to periodontally healthy (PH) patients. Material and Methods: A total of 20 participants were initially enrolled in this pilot, exploratory, single-blinded, cross-sectional clinical human study in two groups: 10 in the PH group and 10 in the IF group. In the participants who have completed the study, gingival tissue and bone samples were harvested from each participant and were used to perform global DNA methylation analysis. The percentage of global DNA methylation (5-mC%) was compared (1) between groups (PH and IF); (2) between the subgroups of gingival tissue and bone separately; (3) in the whole sample, comparing gingival tissue and bone; (4) within groups, comparing gingival tissue and bone. Demographic, periodontal, and peri-implant measurements as well as periodontal staging, were also recorded. All statistical comparisons were made at the 0.05 significance level. Results: Out of the initially enrolled 20 patients, only 19 completed the study and, thus, were included in the final analysis; 10 patients in the PH group and 9 patients in the IF group, contributing to a total of 38 samples. One patient from the IF group was excluded from the study due to systemic disease. The mean implant survival time was 10.8 years (2.17–15.25 years). Intergroup comparison, stratified by group, indicated a similar 5-mC% between the PH and IF groups in both gingival tissue and bone (p = 0.599), only in bone (p = 0.414), and only in gingival tissue (p = 0.744). Intragroup comparison, stratified by the type of sample, indicated a significantly higher 5-mC% in gingival tissue samples compared to bone in both the PH and IF groups (p = 0.001), in the PH group (p = 0.019), and in the IF group (p = 0.009). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, higher global DNA methylation levels were found in gingival tissue samples compared to bone, regardless of the study groups. However, similar global DNA methylation levels were observed overall between the IF and PH groups. Yet, differences in the global DNA methylation levels between gingival tissues and bone, regardless of the study group, could reflect a different epigenetic response between various tissues within the same microenvironment. Further studies are necessary to elucidate the present findings and to evaluate the role of epigenetic modifications in IF due to PIT.

Peri-Implantitis: Application of a Protocol for the Regeneration of Deep Osseous Defects. A Retrospective Case Series

Background and aims: Peri-implantitis is a complex pathology, both in its diagnosis and in the identification of etiological causes. Although we have been studying more and more over the years to try to answer the many questions that remain regarding everything that circulates around this disease which affects implants, nothing has yet been taken as an official consensus regarding its surgical treatment. There are still many proposed protocols, each of which has been shown to have comforting results and promising prospects, but no total predictability. The aim of this case series is to assess the clinical outcomes of a mixed protocol for the regeneration of deep osseous defects. Materials and methods: The data and clinical records of 23 patients, with 29 implants affected by peri-implantitis treated surgically in private practice, were analyzed retrospectively. The method used for the surgical treatment was a mixed protocol of mechanical–chemical decontamination and bone regeneration with bovine xenograft. Results: All patients were followed for at least 2 years, averaging 28.9 months (a range of 24–38 months) with a reduction in the probing depth (PD) at one year from the initial 8.14 ± 1.156 mm to 3.72 ± 0.649 mm, and to 4.14 ± 1.093 mm at the final assessment. The differences between assessment time points were always statistically significant. The data regarding bleeding on probing (BoP) and suppuration also showed a statistically significant reduction at the final time point compared to the baseline. Only one patient, at 24 months, still showed BoP, suppuration, and a PD deeper than 5 mm, indicating a recurrence of the disease compared to the initial improvement of the PD (5 mm) at one year. Conclusions: In conclusion, within the limits of this retrospective analysis, it can be affirmed that this combined mechanical–chemical and regenerative decontamination therapy is effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.

Results

Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x.

Surgical approach combining implantoplasty and reconstructive therapy with locally delivered antibiotic in the treatment of peri-implantitis: A prospective clinical case series

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical treatment, resective surgery, reconstructive surgery, or combined approaches have been proposed for the treatment of peri-implantitis, with variable results.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes following combined resective and reconstructive surgical treatment with topical piperacillin/tazobactam antibiotic in the management of peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-three patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included. Surgical treatment consisted of implantoplasty of the supra-crestal component of the defect, the application of a topical antibiotic solution over the implant surface, and subsequent reconstruction of the intra-osseous component of the peri-implant defect. The primary outcome was disease resolution, defined as the absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and/or suppuration on probing (SoP), a peri-implant pocket probing depth (PPD) ≤5 mm, and no bone loss >0.5 mm 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included changes in BoP, PPD, SoP, and peri-implant marginal bone levels. One implant per patient was included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The treatment success rate of the 43 dental implants included in the study was 86% at 1 year after surgery. Mean PPD and BoP decreased from 6.41 ± 2.11 mm and 100% at baseline to 3.19 ± 0.99 mm (p < 0.001) and 14% (p < 0.001) at 1 year, respectively. SoP was significantly reduced from 48.8% at baseline to 0% 1 year after surgery (p < 0.001). Radiographically, a mean defect fill of 2.64 ± 1.59 mm was recorded (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a resective and reconstructive surgical approach together with locally delivered antibiotic achieved a high disease resolution rate after 1 year of follow-up and constitutes a viable option for the management of peri-implantitis.

Reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis infrabony defects of various configurations: 5-year survival and success

Aim

To present the 5 years outcomes of a reconstructive surgical protocol for peri‐implantitis defects with different morphologies, by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBMC).

Material and Methods

The original population of this case series consisted of 75 patients with one crater‐like defect and probing depth (PD) ≥6 mm. After flap elevation, defects were assigned to one characteristic class and treated by means of DBBMC. Following healing, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal/peri‐implant (SPT) program.

Results

Fifty‐one patients reached the 5 years examination, as 11 patients were lost to follow‐up and 13 implants were removed. Overall treatment success was registered in 29 patients (45.3%). Mean PD and BOP significantly decreased at one year and remained stable for the rest of observation period. No correlation was found between implant survival rate and defect configuration (p = 0.213). Patients, who did not fully adhere to the SPT, experienced more complications and implant loss than those who regularly attended recall appointments (p = 0.009).

Conclusions

The proposed reconstructive treatment resulted in a high 5 years implant survival rate in patients who fully adhered to SPT. The resolution of the peri‐implantitis defect does not seem significantly associated with the defect configuration at the time of treatment.

Peri-Implantitis: A Clinical Update on Prevalence and Surgical Treatment Outcomes

Dental implants may be considered a reliable routine procedure in clinical practice for the replacement of missing teeth. Results from long-term studies indicate that implant-supported dental prostheses constitute a predictable treatment method for the management of fully and partially edentulous patients. Implants and their restorations, however, are not free from biological complications. In fact, peri-implantitis, defined as progressive bone loss associated to clinical inflammation, is not a rare finding nowadays. This constitutes a concern for clinicians and patients given the negative impact on the quality of life and the sequelae originated by peri-implantitis lesions. The purpose of this narrative review is to report on the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to overview the indications, contraindications, complexity, predictability and effectiveness of the different surgical therapeutic modalities to manage this disorder.

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.