Implant treatment in periodontitis-susceptible patients: a systematic review

The Influence of the Clinicians' Experience on the Outcome of Dental Implants: A Clinical Audit

The purpose of this outcome audit is to evaluate the influence of the clinicians' experience on the outcome of dental implants. In addition, it is to identify the associated risk factors that might influence the success and survival of these implants.

METHODOLOGY

The records of patients treated with SLA/SLActive Straumann implants were screened. This enabled us to have a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Eligible patients, according to the inclusion criteria, were contacted and invited to undergo a follow-up assessment. Success was accounted for and defined in a comprehensive manner by considering four different categories: implant perspective, peri-implant soft tissue perspective, prosthetic perspective, and patient satisfaction. The patient investigations included a clinical examination of the implant mobility, suppuration, width of keratinized mucosa, probing depth, plaque accumulation, prosthetic complications, and patient satisfaction. In addition, a periapical radiograph was taken to evaluate bone loss and peri-implant radiolucency. The data were analysed using SPSS version 26.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight patients with 84 SLA/SLActive Straumann implants were available for the assessment. The mean age of the patients at implant surgery was 49.05 ± 13.19 years. Over the mean follow-up period of 26 months, no implant fractures were noted. Overall, eight implants were considered failures (9.5%). Two out of six patients with a history of periodontitis (HoP) and two out of five smokers exhibited failed implants. The patients' satisfaction responses showed that all the responses were statistically higher than the test median value of three. The median value of general satisfaction using a visual analogue scale was 9 out of 10.

CONCLUSIONS

The implants placed on partially and fully edentulous patients revealed high survival and success rates (100% and 90.5%, respectively) at a mean follow-up time of 26 months. It can be concluded that the implant practise among trainees in the programme is satisfactory. A history of periodontitis and a lack of patient compliance with supportive periodontal therapy in some cases have been shown to be risk factors associated with increased implant failure, mainly peri-implantitis.

Oral and Periodontal Risk Factors of Prosthetic Success for 3-Unit Natural Tooth-Supported Bridges versus Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses

The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40-60 years old (57.1%) (p = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, p = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies with a minimum of 5-years follow-up, reporting on the management of periodontally compromised teeth with either extraction and subsequent implant placement or teeth preservation with conventional periodontal treatment and application of regenerative procedures. The outcomes of these two approaches, based on clinical and radiographic data and the incidence of tooth- and implant-loss, were also investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search for studies reporting on clinical and radiographic outcomes of periodontal treatment or replacement of periodontally compromised teeth with implants was conducted in 3 electronic databases, followed by a hand-search in 8 journals. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with prospective design were included.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 1080 papers. After the first two screenings, 24 publications were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The treatment protocols for the teeth preservation group contained nonsurgical and/or surgical periodontal treatment with or without regeneration procedures. The implant studies included extraction of periodontally involved teeth and implant placement with or without bone and soft tissue augmentation, followed by restoration with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Survival rates ranged between 81.8% and 100% in the tooth retention group, and between 94.8% and 100% in the implant group. In the extraction group, no complications were reported for 76.09% of the implants. Similarly, no complications were reported for 86.83% of the tooth retention group. The lack of standardized comparable studies prohibited conduction of a metaanalysis.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment approaches, treatment of periodontally compromised teeth, or tooth extraction followed by implant placement, present high survival rates. The application of bone regeneration techniques improves the long-term prognosis of periodontally involved teeth. Hence, treatment of periodontally involved teeth with subsequent application of a rigorous maintenance protocol can be a viable alternative for a number of years, before proceeding to extraction and replacement with dental implants. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in order to draw definite conclusions on the subject.

Success of dental implant influenced by abutment types and loading protocol

Background:

Dental implants are considered better, latest, and most advanced technique of teeth replacement in present times with more teeth loss and increased related concerns.

Aims:

The present clinical trial was carried out to assess marginal bone loss and implant failure in immediate and delayed loading implants. The study also evaluated healing using Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and the effect of risk factors on marginal bone loss.

Materials and Methods:

The 44 subjects were randomly divided into two groups with immediate loading and delayed loading protocols. Various soft-tissue parameters were seen clinically. Quantitative PCR was done to detect biomarkers. The collected data were subjected to statistical evaluation with a level of significance at P < 0.05 and the results were formulated.

Results:

Concerning marginal bone loss, it was seen that for delayed loading, the bone loss at the implant level was 1.52 ± 0.14, 0.19 ± 0.11, and 0.40 ± 0.12, respectively, at placement, 1 and 2 years. Plaque and mucosal bleeding scores were low at the time of placement with respective values of 0.96 ± 0.12 and 28.42 ± 3.15 for the delayed loading group and 0.98 ± 0.11 and 30.24 ± 3.15 for the immediate loading group. Tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) showing remodeling was high at 3 months in delayed loading (13.3 ± 8.5). Alkaline Phosphatase (ALP) was highest in delayed loading at 3 months (25.2 ± 7.7) and immediate loading at 2 days (32.6 ± 13).

Conclusion:

Both immediate loading and delayed loading implants show similar results in terms of bone loss, soft-tissue parameters, and biomarkers in sulcular fluids with relatively few and manageable complications.

Efficacy and risks of tooth-supported prostheses in the treatment of partially edentulous patients with stage IV periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim was to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of tooth-supported fixed prostheses in partially edentulous patients with stage IV periodontitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) and prospective/retrospective cohort studies or case series were searched in three databases. Survival rate of abutment teeth was considered the primary outcome. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible.

RESULTS

Twenty-four publications were included. No RCTs or CCTs compared the efficacy of tooth-supported fixed prostheses between patients with severe periodontitis or non-periodontitis patients. Most of the data retrieved were derived from case series. The incidence of abutment-tooth loss after a follow-up period from 2 to 35.4 years was low (n = 17 studies; weighted mean incidence (WMI) = 4.8%; confidence interval (CI) [3.2, 6.5]). The corresponding figure for prostheses failure was WMI = 6.9% (n = 18; 95% CI [4.1, 9.7]). Technical complications seemed to be more frequent than biological complications (caries, endodontic failure, root fracture, etc.). Periodontal outcomes tended to remain stable over time.

CONCLUSION

Tooth-supported fixed prostheses seemed to be a valid treatment approach to restore masticatory function in patients with stage IV periodontitis once periodontal therapy has been accomplished. However, the comparative efficacy of this treatment among periodontitis and non-periodontitis patients is unclear due to the absence of clinical trials.

Impact of tooth loss due to periodontal disease on the prognosis of rehabilitation

When periodontal disease is diagnosed, it is difficult to predict the clinical response of treatment of a tooth over time because the result of treatment is affected by several factors and will depend on the maintenance and support of periodontal treatment. Rehabilitation with removable dental prostheses, fixed prostheses, and dental implants makes it possible to restore the function and esthetics of patients with tooth loss due to periodontal disease. The predictive factors of tooth loss in periodontitis patients should be assessed by dentists to inform their clinical decision-making during dental treatment planning. This will provide detailed individualized information and level of risk of patients considered suitable for dental rehabilitation. Therefore, the aim of this article was to review the subject of "Impact of tooth loss due to periodontal disease on the prognosis of rehabilitation" and the effect of fixed, removable, and implant-supported prostheses in periodontal patients.

Impact of Mechanical Complications on Success of Dental Implant Treatments: A Case-Control Study

Objective  This study aimed to investigate the impact of mechanical complications on outcome measures for implant dentistry.

Materials and Methods  This case–control study included 282 patients with mechanical complications occurring in fixed prosthetic rehabilitation supported by immediate function implants with external connection (cases) and 282 individuals without mechanical complications (control). Pairing was performed for sex, age (range = 3 years), and follow-up months (range = 11 months). The primary outcome measure was implant survival, while the secondary outcome measures were marginal bone loss and biological complication parameters (peri-implant pathology, soft tissue inflammation, fistula formation, and abscess formation).

Statistical Analysis  Cumulative implant survival was estimated by using life tables. Descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and inferential statistics (Chi-square test) were performed to evaluate differences between cases and controls. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results  The average follow-up duration was 8.5 years. Mechanical complications included prosthetic fracture ( n = 159), abutment loosening ( n = 89), prosthetic screw loosening ( n = 20), milled abutment ( n = 12), milled prosthetic screw ( n = 1), and decemented crown ( n = 1). Implant failure occurred in one patient from the control group, with survival rates of 100 and 99.6% for cases and controls, respectively ( p = 0.317). The average marginal bone loss was 1.72 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.60–1.84) for cases and 1.55 (95% CI: 1.45–1.65) for controls ( p = 0.068). Biological complications were observed in 90 patients, with significant differences between cases ( n = 54) and controls ( n = 36; p = 0.038).

Conclusion  Mechanical complications did not significantly influence survival or marginal bone loss; nevertheless, there is a need for studies with longer follow-up duration. Mechanical complications also significantly influence the incidence of biological complications.

Sealing agent reduces formation of single and dual-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis on screw joints at the abutment/implant interface

The aim of this research was to evaluate the efficacy of a commercial sealing agent at the abutment/implant interface against microleakage of single and dual-species biofilms of Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis into external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) prosthetic connections. A total of 216 samples of implants and their abutments were tested. Six groups (n = 36) were evaluated based on biofilm and period of incubation (7 and 14 days). The implant connections EH and MT (n = 18) were divided according to the use of the material (n = 9) (EH-T and MT-T: with the sealing agent; EH-C and MT-C: control). The biofilms were analyzed by microbial counting (CFU/mL) and SEM analysis and photographs of the material in the screw joints were also taken. Data were analyzed by Student t test, two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test. For the single-species biofilms, there was a significant reduction in the growth of E. faecalis when compared MT-C and MT-T or EH-C and EH-T at 7 and 14 days. The same was observed for C. albicans biofilms. For dual-species biofilms of E. faecalis and C. albicans, the sealing agent was more effective in preventing microbial infiltration into the MT connection at 14 days, while microbial infiltration did not occur into EH connections even in absence of the sealing agent for both periods of evaluation. Overall, these data suggest that the presence of the sealing agent reduces or eliminates the microleakage of E. faecalis and C. albicans biofilms into the implants regardless of the period of incubation.

Peri-implant alveolar bone resorption in an innovative peri-implantitis murine model: Effect of implant surface and onset of infection

PURPOSE

To compare the difference in alveolar bone resorption around implants after immediate placement in a bacterial induced experimental periimplantitis murine model. The various conditions that were examined were: Effect of implant surface characteristics and the onset of the induced infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Screw-shaped titanium implants, smooth-surface or sand-blasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) coated, were inserted immediately after extraction of the first upper left molar, in 90 5-6-week-old BALB/c mice. The mice were infected with Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum 21 (early infection) or 42 days (delayed infection) after implantation. Six weeks post infection, bone volume around inserted implants was measured using micro-CT, and was compared to alveolar bone level around teeth. Histological analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

The level of bone loss was significantly higher around the implants compared to the teeth, for smooth surface implants the bone loss was higher than of the SLA surface in both control and infected groups with no statistical significance. The survival rate of the implants in immediate infection was 75% compared of the 100% survival of the delayed infection and control mice. There is no significant difference between the early and the delayed infection in alveolar bone loss level around the implants.

CONCLUSIONS

This model can assist in studying the differences in alveolar bone resorption in different implants and their effect on the development of the disease.

Are There Contraindications for Placing Dental Implants?

There are few absolute contraindications to dental implant placement. Relative contraindications include cognitive decline, American Society of Anesthesiology patient status IV or higher categories, or medical conditions that may jeopardize the life or lifespan of the patient. Precautions for placing dental implants should be viewed with respect to the evidence-based exposures that can contribute to risk of failure, including but not limited to local, behavioral, and medical factors. Risk for dental implant failure increases in association with (1) past history of periodontal disease, (2) bruxism, (3) smoking, and (4) radiation therapy.

Effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To review the literature on the effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The present review addresses the following focus question: Is there a difference for implant survival, mean marginal bone loss, and the incidence of bleeding on probing in periodontally compromised patients receiving a machined dental implant or rough surface dental implant?

METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on studies published until May 2018 to collect information about the effect of machined, moderately rough, and rough dental implant surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The outcome variables implant survival, mean marginal bone level, and the incidence of peri-implantitis and bleeding on probing were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain an accurate estimation of the overall, cumulative results.

RESULTS

Out of 2411 articles, six studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the implant survival and implant mean marginal bone loss revealed a risk ratio of 2.92 (CI 95% 0.45, 18.86) for implant failure and a total mean difference of - 0.09 (CI 95% - 0.31, 0.14) for implant mean marginal bone loss measured in a total group of 215 implants, both not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to lack of long-term data (> 5 years), the heterogeneity and variability in study designs and lack of reporting on confounding factors, definitive conclusions on differences in implant survival, and mean marginal bone loss between machined and moderate rough implants in periodontally compromised patients cannot be drawn. Future well-designed long-term randomized controlled trials are necessary to reveal that machined surfaces are superior to moderately rough and rough surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease.

Comprehensive rehabilitation using dental implants in generalized aggressive periodontitis

Generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP) is a debilitating form of the disease and it results in deteriorating effects on the esthetic and functional aspects of the oral cavity. This case report describes the comprehensive rehabilitation of GAP patient using dental implants. The treatment planning involved thorough scaling and root planning (SRP) with oral hygiene instructions. The patient was motivated to adhere to a strict oral hygiene regimen following which periodontal flap surgery employing guided tissue regeneration and bone grafts was performed. Bacterial culture for anaerobic microorganisms was done using a gas pack pre- and postperiodontal treatment to confirm the effectiveness of the periodontal treatment regimen and also to proceed with dental implant placement. The rigorous maintenance program ensured the stability of the periodontium following which immediate placement of dental implants in the maxillary and mandibular anterior region was done. The fixed metal-ceramic prosthesis was fabricated in a step-by-step process and the patient was recalled on a periodic basis over a 3-year follow-up duration. This case is a testimonial to the postperiodontal treatment long-term stability with excellent patient cooperation and strict maintenance protocol.

Removal techniques for failed implants

The use of dental implants is an accepted and predictable way of replacing missing or lost teeth. However, implants can and will fail and there are a variety of reasons why this occurs, which the practitioner should understand. In some instances failed implants may require removal and, therefore, practitioners should be aware of techniques that can be used to remove failed implants to potentially enable future rehabilitation of an edentulous region.

Long-Term Effect of Surface Roughness and Patients' Factors on Crestal Bone Loss at Dental Implants. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

Associations of clinical characteristics and interval between maintenance visits with peri-implant pathology

We investigated the effects of clinical characteristics and the interval between maintenance visits on incidence of peri-implant pathology in a sample of 1,350 patients treated with dental implants (270 cases of peri-implant pathology and 1,080 healthy controls). The chi-square test was used to evaluate differences between cases and controls in the presence of dental plaque, bleeding, peri-implant pockets >4 mm, bone level, and interval between maintenance visits (significance level, 5%). Crude odds ratios (ORs) and attributable fractions were calculated for variables that significantly differed between cases and controls. The variables identified as risk indicators were dental plaque (P < 0.001; OR = 5.2), bleeding (P < 0.001; OR = 5.0), peri-implant pockets >4 mm (P < 0.001; OR = 17.2), bone level (P < 0.001; middle third, OR = 8.4; apical third, OR = 8.6), and interval between maintenance visits (P < 0.001; 1-3 months, OR = 2.9; 3-5 months, OR = 2.1). Attributable fractions revealed a potential reduction in peri-implant pathology of 53-94% after removing exposures to dental plaque (81%), bleeding (80%), peri-implant pockets >4 mm (94%), bone level (88%), and interval between maintenance visits (53-66%). Selected clinical characteristics and the interval between maintenance visits were significantly associated with the incidence of peri-implant pathology.

Full mouth rehabilitation with zygomatic implants in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis: 2 year follow-up of two cases

Rehabilitation of severely atrophied maxillae is often a challenge and patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP) make it even more complicated. This clinical report describes rehabilitation of GAP patients with zygomatic implants and followed-up for 2 years. Two patients of age 33 and 44 reported to a private dental practice and were diagnosed with GAP. Various treatment options were considered after which it was decided to do a full mouth implant supported fixed rehabilitation, with a combination of conventional and zygomatic implants. Two zygomatic and four conventional implants were placed and immediately loaded with a provisional prosthesis. After 6 months, definitive prosthesis was delivered. Implants and prostheses were followed-up for 2 years. No implant failures occurred, but a few biological complications were observed. The most common clinical observation in these patients during recall visits was peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation, which is a biological complication. This was with no trouble, controlled by using proper oral hygiene aids and maintenance. Within the limitations of this study, we can state that it can definitely be considered as a viable treatment option treating patients with GAP. However, studies with more follow-up time and controlled clinical trials should be performed in order to document the longevity of this treatment modality.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A 5-year retrospective study on postsurgical periimplant infection during initial bone healing period: clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis

PURPOSE

The aim of this 5-year evaluation was to assess the clinical characteristics, management, and prognosis of postsurgical periimplant infection during the initial bone healing period.

METHODS

Nine hundred twenty-five implants (514 patients) placed without bone augmentation procedures were assessed. Ten implants (1.08%) in 7 patients (1.36%) were diagnosed as postsurgical periimplant infection. Different management methods were adopted respectively.

RESULTS

All reported implant infections were diagnosed after 2 weeks from implant surgery. Among the infected cases, 7 implants (70%) in 4 patients (57%) were successfully treated and loaded. Three implants (30%) in 3 patients (43%) failed to achieve osseointegration.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested that surgeons should observe the patient closely to detect possible infection during at least 1 month from surgery. Most postsurgical periimplant infections could recover and achieve osseointegration after timely and effective management.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Oral diagnosis and treatment planning: part 6. Preventive and treatment planning for periodontal disease

A high level of sustained personal plaque control is fundamental for successful treatment outcomes in patients with active periodontal disease and, hence, oral hygiene instructions are the cornerstone of periodontal treatment planning. Other risk factors for periodontal disease also should be identified and modified where possible. Many restorative dental treatments in particular require the establishment of healthy periodontal tissues for their clinical success. Failure by patients to control dental plaque because of inappropriate designs and materials for restorations and prostheses will result in the long-term failure of the restorations and the loss of supporting tissues. Periodontal treatment planning considerations are also very relevant to endodontic, orthodontic and osseointegrated dental implant conditions and proposed therapies.

Oral rehabilitation considerations for partially edentulous periodontal patients

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Biofilm related to dental implants

Oral biofilm-related diseases such as periodontal and peri-implant diseases are unique infections in that they develop from the resident indigenous microflora. As more implants are nowadays being placed, clinicians may encounter more complications. Therefore, understanding the etiology is warranted to establish adequate diagnosis and provide proper treatment. This article focuses on understanding peri-implant microbiology and its roles in peri-implant diseases.