Long-term stability of surgical bone regenerative procedures of peri-implantitis lesions in a prospective case-control study over 3 years

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]).

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.

Selecting biomaterials in the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis

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

Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri-implantitis defects. A network meta-analysis

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) at peri-implantitis-related bone defects involves the placement of bone-filler particles in the intrabony defects and the application of a barrier membrane. The efficacy of different GBR-supported reconstructive measures as well as their potential superiority compared to non-GBR-supported treatment strategies for bone defects at peri-implantitis sites, however, remains unclear. Therefore, this analysis was designed to evaluate the long-term (≥12 months) clinical efficacy of GBR-supported reconstructive surgical therapy for peri-implantitis-related bone defects. In terms of resolving inflammation, the implementation of GBR protocols applying xenogenic bone substitutes yielded a higher reduction of bleeding on probing and probing depth value compared to the GBR protocol applying autogenous bone. Furthermore, for the changes in bleeding on probing and probing depths, GBR approaches using xenogenic bone showed superiority over the non-GBR treatments. Xenogenic bone with or without a barrier membrane was associated with improved radiographic bone levels and less soft tissue recession compared to the use of a GBR protocol implementing autogenous bone. Nonetheless, when interpreting this findings, the limited number of available studies with low to serious risk of bias and the short follow-up periods limited to 12 months should be considered.

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.

The adjunctive effect of a resorbable membrane to a xenogeneic bone replacement graft in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the potential adjunctive effect of a resorbable collagen membrane covering a xenogeneic bone replacement graft in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-three patients (43 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis associated with intra-bony defects were treated with a surgical reconstructive approach that included a xenogeneic bone substitute material. Additionally, resorbable collagen membranes were placed over the grafting material at sites randomly allocated to the test group; conversely, no membranes were placed in the control group. Clinical outcomes, namely probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BoP and SoP), marginal mucosal level (REC) and keratinized mucosa width (KMW), were recorded at baseline and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Radiographic marginal bone levels (MBLs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at baseline and 12 months. A composite outcome (success) was evaluated at 12 months, which included the absence of BoP/SoP, PPD ≤5 mm and reduction of buccal marginal mucosal level (buccal REC) of ≤1 mm.

RESULTS

At 12 months, no implants were lost and treatment success was observed at 36.8% and 45.0% of implants in the test and control groups, respectively (p = .61). Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of changes of PPD, BoP/SoP, KMW, MBL or buccal REC. Post-surgical complications were observed in the test group only (e.g., soft tissue dehiscence, exposure of particulate bone graft and/or resorbable membrane). Longer surgical times (~10 min; p < .05) and higher levels of self-reported pain at 2 weeks (p < .01) were observed in the test group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to demonstrate the presence of added clinical or radiographic benefits of the use of a resorbable membrane to cover a bone substitute material within the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis associated with intra-bony defects.

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.

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.

The efficacy of systemic antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Microbial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed.

CONCLUSION

The use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors' declaration on conflict of interest.

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 treatment of peri-implantitis defects with two different xenograft granules: A randomized clinical pilot study

Objectives

To investigate whether xenograft EB (EndoBon) is non‐inferior to xenograft BO (Bio‐Oss) when used in reconstructive surgery of peri‐implant osseous defects.

Materials and methods

Dental patients with one implant each demonstrating peri‐implantitis were randomized to receive surgical debridement and defect fill with either BO or EB. Changes in bone level (BL) and intrabony defect depth (IDD) evaluated radiographically were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes included changes in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), and suppuration on probing (SoP). All outcomes were recorded before treatment and at 6 and 12 months post‐treatment.

Results

Twenty‐four patients (n = 11 BO, n = 13 EB) completed the study. Both groups demonstrated significant within‐group improvements in all clinical and radiographic parameters at 6 and 12 months (p ≤ .001). At 12 months, both groups presented with IDD reductions of 2.5–3.0 mm on average. The inter‐group differences were not statistically significant at all time points and for all the examined parameters (p > .05). While the radiographic defect fill in both groups exceeded > 1 mm and can be considered treatment success, successful treatment outcomes as defined by Consensus Reporting (no further bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP, and no SoP) were identified in 2/11 (18%) BO and 0/13 (0%) EB individuals (Fisher's exact test, p = .199).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this pilot study, the application of xenograft EB showed to be non‐inferior to xenograft BO when used in reconstructive surgery of peri‐implant osseous defects.

Management of peri-implantitis - A contemporary synopsis

Prevalence of peri-implant complication is expected to be on the rise with the increased number of implants being placed. Depending on the degree of osseous involvement, the clinician needs to decide if the treatment goal is to arrest the disease progression, regeneration or explantation and replacement. Host's medical status, defect configuration, aesthetic outcome, ability to access for plaque control post-treatment, and the patient's wishes are key factors to consider. The purpose of this review is to provide a contemporary synopsis on the management of peri-implantitis with emphasis on explantation. Guidance on the identification of factors/situations where salvaging an implant may be less favourable is discussed and the various techniques to remove a fractured, or peri-implantitis-affected non-mobile implant are described.

Peri-Implant Bone Loss and Peri-Implantitis: A Report of Three Cases and Review of the Literature

Dental implant supported restorations have been added substantially to the clinical treatment options presented to patients. However, complications with these treatment options also arise due to improper patient selection and inadequate treatment planning combined with poor follow-up care. The complications related to the presence of inflammation include perimucositis, peri-implant bone loss, and peri-implantitis. Prevalence rates of these complications have been reported to be as high as 56%. Treatment options that have been reported include nonsurgical therapy, the use of locally delivered and systemically delivered antibiotics, and surgical protocols aimed at regenerating the lost bone and soft tissue around the implants. The aim of this article is to report on three cases and review some of the treatment options used in their management.

Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the surgical regenerative treatment of the peri-implantitis and to determine an effective therapeutic predictable option for their clinical management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2006 to 2016. Clinical human studies that had reported changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BOP) and/or radiologic marginal bone level (RBL) changes after peri-implantitis surgical treatment at 12-month follow-up or longer were included accordingly to PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

The initial search obtained 883 citations. After screening and determination of eligibility, 18 articles were included in the review. The meta-analysis of selected studies revealed that the weighted mean RBL fill was 1.97 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58 to 2.35 mm), PD reduction was 2.78 mm (95% CI = 2.31 to 3.25 mm), and BOP reduced by 52.5% (95% CI = 41.6 to 63.1%). Defect fill in studies using and not using barrier membranes for graft coverage was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.36 to 2.36 mm) and 2.12 mm (95% CI = 1.46 to 2.78 mm) correspondingly. High heterogeneity among the studies regarding defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found.

CONCLUSIONS

All included studies underlined an improvement of clinical conditions after the surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis, however, there is a lack of scientific evidence in the literature regarding the superiority of the regenerative versus non-regenerative surgical treatment. The presence of a barrier membrane or submergence in the regenerative procedure does not seem to be fundamental in order to obtain clinical success of the surgery.

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

In patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of nonsurgical (i.e. referring to peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) and surgical (i.e. referring to peri-implantitis) treatments with alternative or adjunctive measures on changing signs of inflammation compared with conventional nonsurgical (i.e. mechanical/ultrasonic debridement) and surgical (i.e. open flap debridement) treatments alone? After electronic database and hand search, a total of 40 publications (reporting on 32 studies) were finally considered for the qualitative and quantitative assessment. The weighted mean changes (WM)/ and WM differences (WMD) were estimated for bleeding on probing scores (BOP) and probing pocket depths (PD) (random effect model). Peri-implant mucositis: WMD in BOP and PD reductions amounted to -8.16 % [SE = 4.61] and -0.15 mm [SE = 0.13], not favouring adjunctive antiseptics/antibiotics (local and systemic) over control measures (p > 0.05). Peri-implantitis (nonsurgical): WMD in BOP scores amounted to -23.12 % [SE = 4.81] and -16.53 % [SE = 4.41], favouring alternative measures (glycine powder air polishing, Er:YAG laser) for plaque removal and adjunctive local antibiotics over control measures (p < 0.001), respectively. Peri-implantitis (surgical): WMD in BOP and PD reductions did not favour alternative over control measures for surface decontamination. WM reductions following open flap surgery (±resective therapy) and adjunctive augmentative therapy amounted to 34.81 and 50.73 % for BOP and 1.75 and 2.20 mm for PD, respectively. While mechanical debridement alone was found to be effective for the management of peri-implant mucositis, alternative/adjunctive measures may improve the efficacy over/of conventional nonsurgical treatments at peri-implantitis sites. Adjunctive resective and/or augmentative measures are promising; however, their beneficial effect on the clinical outcome of surgical treatments needs to be further investigated.

Reconstruction of Peri-implant Osseous Defects

There is a paucity of data for the effectiveness of reconstructive procedures in the treatment of peri-implantitis. The objective of this study was to compare reconstruction of peri-implant osseous defects with open flap debridement (OFD) plus porous titanium granules (PTGs) compared with OFD alone. Sixty-three patients (36 female, 27 male; mean age 58.4 y [SD 12.3]), contributing one circumferential peri-implant intraosseous defect, were included in a multinational, multicenter randomized trial using a parallel-group design. After OFD and surface decontamination using titanium brushes and hydrogen peroxide, 33 defects received PTGs. The implants were not submerged. All patients received adjunctive perioperative systemic antibiotics. The primary outcome variable (defect fill) was assessed on digitalized radiographs. Clinical measurements of probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), suppuration, and plaque were taken by blinded examiners. After 12 mo, the test group (OFD plus PTG) showed a mean radiographic defect fill (mesial/distal) of 3.6/3.6 mm compared with 1.1/1.0 in the control group (OFD). Differences were statistically significant in favor of the test group ( P < 0.0001). The OFD plus PTG group showed a mean reduction in PPD of 2.8 mm compared with 2.6 mm in the OFD group. BoP was reduced from 89.4% to 33.3% and from 85.8% to 40.4% for the test and control groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in complete resolution of peri-implantitis (PPD ≤4 mm and no BoP at six implant sites and no further bone loss), because this finding was accomplished at 30% of implants in the test group and 23% of implants in the control group. Reconstructive surgery using PTGs resulted in significantly enhanced radiographic defect fill compared with OFD. However, limitations in the lack of ability to discern biomaterial from osseous tissue could not be verified to determine new bone formation. Similar improvements according to clinical measures were obtained after both surgical treatment modalities (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02406001).

Pathological mandibular fracture: A severe complication of periimplantitis

Nowadays, dental implant treatment is a very common option for patients even in medical compromised conditons. Some complications related to them have been described. Periimplantitis (PI) is one of the biggest concerns complications of these kind of treatments, probably has a multifactorial aethiology. Usually the consequences of PI are the loss of the implants and prostheses, expenses of money and time for dentists and patients. Very often PI implies the necesity of repeating the treatment . Pathological mandibular fracture due to PI is a severe but infrequent complication after dental implant treatment, especially after PI. In this study we present three cases of mandibular pathologic fractures among patients with different medical and dental records but similar management: two of them had been treated years ago of oral squamous cell carcinoma with surgery and radiotherapy, the other patient received oral bisphosphonates for osteoporosis some years after implantation. We analized the causes, consequences and posible prevention of these fractures as well as the special features of this kind of mandibular fractures and the different existing treatments. Key words:Periimplantitis, pathological mandibular fracture, mandibular atrophy, bicortical implants.

Decontamination using a desiccant with air powder abrasion followed by biphasic calcium sulfate grafting: a new treatment for peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis is characterized by inflammation and crestal bone loss in the tissues surrounding implants. Contamination by deleterious bacteria in the peri-implant microenvironment is believed to be a major factor in the etiology of peri-implantitis. Prior to any therapeutic regenerative treatment, adequate decontamination of the peri-implant microenvironment must occur. Herein we present a novel approach to the treatment of peri-implantitis that incorporates the use of a topical desiccant (HYBENX), along with air powder abrasives as a means of decontamination, followed by the application of biphasic calcium sulfate combined with inorganic bovine bone material to augment the intrabony defect. We highlight the case of a 62-year-old man presenting peri-implantitis at two neighboring implants in positions 12 and 13, who underwent access flap surgery, followed by our procedure. After an uneventful 2-year healing period, both implants showed an absence of bleeding on probing, near complete regeneration of the missing bone, probing pocket depth reduction, and clinical attachment gain. While we observed a slight mucosal recession, there was no reduction in keratinized tissue. Based on the results described within, we conclude that the use of HYBENX and air powder abrasives, followed by bone defect grafting, represents a viable option in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

Treatment of peri-implantitis and the failing implant

Appropriate treatment of implants is becoming increasingly important for the general dentist as the number of implants placed per year continues to increase. Early diagnosis of peri-implantitis is imperative; initiating the correct treatment protocol depends on a proper diagnosis. Several risk factors exist for the development of peri-implantitis, which can guide patient selection and treatment planning. Treatment of peri-implantitis should be tailored to the severity of the lesion (as outlined by the cumulative interceptive supportive treatment protocol), ranging from mechanical debridement to explantation. Several surgical and nonsurgical treatment alternatives exist. There is little consensus on superior treatment methods.

The utilization of a diode laser in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

A comparison of different treatment modalities of peri-implantitis can lead to the development and application of more effective and efficient methods of therapy in clinical practice. This study compares the effectiveness of open flap debridement used alone, with an approach employing the additional use of a diode laser for the treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen patients were divided into two groups and treated for peri-implantitis. In the control group (C group), the therapy utilized access flaps, plastic curettes, and sterilized gauzes soaked in saline. The test group (L group) was treated similarly but with additional irradiation using a diode laser. The parameters studied were pocket depth (PD) as the primary outcome variable, clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI) as secondary variables. Measurements were performed at three different time points, baseline (BSL), 3 months, and 6 months after treatment. Three months after treatment, a mean PD reduction of 1.19 mm for the control group and 1.38 mm for the laser group was recorded. The corresponding BOP changes were 72.9 and 66.7%, respectively. These changes were significant and remained at the same levels at the 6-month examination (p < 0.05). CAL was reduced significantly only in group L from 5.25 mm at baseline to 4.54 mm at 3 months, remaining at this level at 6 months (p < 0.05). PI was reduced significantly in group C at 3 months from 37.5 to 6.3%. The 6-month data showed no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) from the 3-month measurements.

RESULTS

The two methods of therapy for peri-implantitis examined seemed to be equally efficient in the reduction of the PD and BOP 3 months after surgery, with the results sustained at the same levels after 6 months. CAL significantly improved only in the test group after 3 months. PI was reduced and maintained at low levels in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by access flaps leads to improvement of all clinical parameters studied while the additional use of diode laser does not seem to have an extra beneficiary effect.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The additional use of a diode laser in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis offers a limited clinical benefit.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a 5-year follow-up

AIM

To compare two regenerative surgical treatments for peri-implantitis over 5 years.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Twenty-five individuals with peri-implantitis remained at study endpoint. They were treated with a bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (13 individuals with 23 implants) [Group 1], or with bone substitute alone (12 individuals with 22 implants) [Group 2]. All study individuals were kept on a strict maintenance programme every third month.

RESULTS

Five-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements in both groups. No implants were lost due to progression of peri-implantitis. Probing depths were reduced by 3.0 ± 2.4 mm in Group 1, and 3.3 ± 2.09 mm in Group 2 (NS). In both groups, radiographic evidence of bone gain was significant (p < 0.001). At year 5, the average defect fill was 1.3 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) in Group 1 and 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.2 mm) in Group 2 (mean diff; 0.4 95% CI -0.3, 1.2, p = 0.24). Bleeding on probing decreased in both groups. Baseline and year 5 plaque scores did not differ between groups and was reduced from 50% to 15%.

CONCLUSION

Both procedures resulted in stable conditions. Additional use of a membrane does not improve the outcome.

Peri-implant diseases: a review of treatment interventions

The ideal management of peri-implant diseases focuses on infection control, detoxification of implant surfaces, regeneration of lost tissues, and plaque-control regimens via mechanical debridement (with or without raising a surgical flap). However, a variety of other therapeutic modalities also have been proposed for the management of peri-implantitis. These treatment strategies encompass use of antiseptics and/or antibiotics, laser therapy, guided bone regeneration, and photodynamic therapy. The aim of this article was to review indexed literature with reference to the various therapeutic interventions proposed for the management of peri-implant diseases.

Management of peri-implant disease: a current appraisal

While the clinical science of managing peri-implant diseases is progressing, careful monitoring and preventive care of peri-implant tissue health during maintenance is paramount.

BACKGROUND

Implants have become a routine treatment option for missing dentition. The biological complications of restored dental implants and associated supra-structures share similarities with the biofilm infections of natural dentition. Our existing paradigms of periodontal disease treatment can partially be applied to management of peri-implant disease.

APPROACH

A critical analysis of the peri-implant disease literature was conducted, anchored by a search on the MEDLINE database (2005 to present) by way of Ovid Medline(®). Search terms peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant diseases were utilized. Select references within bibliographies of review articles were sought.

CONCLUSION

The dental team must play a critical role in educating patients to control plaque-biofilm associated with peri-implant tissues and associated restorations. Routine assessments at maintenance appointments allow early treatment intervention to prevent escalation of peri-implant disease. Given the infancy of clinical science surrounding peri-implantitis treatment, further, high-quality evidence based studies are expected.

Treatment Alternatives to Negotiate Peri-Implantitis

Peri-implant diseases are becoming a major health issue in dentistry. Despite the magnitude of this problem and the potential grave consequences, commonly acceptable treatment protocols are missing. Hence, the present paper reviews the literature treatment of peri-implantitis in order to explore their benefits and limitations. Treatment of peri-implantitis may include surgical and nonsurgical approaches, either individually or combined. Nonsurgical therapy is aimed at removing local irritants from the implants' surface with or without surface decontamination and possibly some additional adjunctive therapies agents or devices. Systemic antibiotics may also be incorporated. Surgical therapy is aimed at removing any residual subgingival deposits and additionally reducing the peri-implant pockets depth. This can be done alone or in conjunction with either osseous respective approach or regenerative approach. Finally, if all fails, explantation might be the best alternative in order to arrest the destruction of the osseous structure around the implant, thus preserving whatever is left in this site for future reconstruction. The available literature is still lacking with large heterogeneity in the clinical response thus suggesting possible underlying predisposing conditions that are not all clear to us. Therefore, at present time treatment of peri-implantitis should be considered possible but not necessarily predictable.

Ailing and failing oral implants: initial therapy and surgical management

The distinction between ailing and failing implants is clinically important. Changes in the peri-implant soft or hard tissues will indicate whether the implant is ailing, failing, or has failed. This article discusses these clinical situations and provides an overview and description of peri-implant diseases and their treatment alternatives.

A two-stage surgical approach to the treatment of severe peri-implant defect: a 30-month clinical follow-up report

With the advance of dental implant technology and the consequential increase in its success rate, the implant has become a highly predictable treatment method. Despite this, related complications are on the rise, with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis being the most commonly observed. As in the case of conventional periodontitis, many patients experience peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. In this case presentation, extensive bone loss occurred around the implant due to peri-implantitis, and the infection was first treated by applying chlorhexidine-soaked gauze and topical antibiotics. Then the guided bone regeneration procedure was performed using a bovine bone material and a collagen membrane, which resulted in the recovery of the lesion. With follow-ups of the healing process for 30 months, a successful outcome was observed that is reported herein.