Clinical research of peri-implant diseases - quality of reporting, case definitions and methods to study incidence, prevalence and risk factors of peri-implant diseases

Semi-automated generation of bone loss defects around dental implants and its application in finite element analysis

This study aimed to develop an algorithm for modelling bone loss defects in a given mandibular geometry, with a user-defined depth, width, place, and defect type. The algorithm was implemented using Grasshopper and models with different bone loss types and depths around a dental implant were built. The models were used in a finite element analysis (FEA) to predict the stresses in peri-implant bone. The FEA showed that the stresses in peri-implant bone depend primarily on the depth of bone loss, whereas the type of bone loss showed no major influence.

Clinical, radiographic, and histological/histomorphometric analysis of maxillary sinus grafting with deproteinized porcine or bovine bone mineral: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to compare histomorphometrically evaluated new bone formation, radiographically measured graft stability, and clinical implant outcome between maxillary sinus grafting with either deproteinized porcine bone mineral (DPBM) or deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty maxillary sinuses were initially included and randomly assigned to the test group (TG; DPBM, n = 15) or control group (CG; DBBM, n = 15). After a healing period (6 months), axially retrieved bone biopsies of the molar region were used for histological/histomorphometric analysis of new bone formations. Additionally, radiographically measured graft stability and clinical implant outcome were assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three sinus sites with 10 sinuses of the TG and 13 of the CG were ultimately available for data and statistical analysis. In the TG, a slightly, but yet significantly (p = .040) higher proportion of new bone formation (TG: 27.7 ± 5.6% vs. CG: 22.9 ± 5.1%) and a lesser (p = .019) amount of connective (non-mineralized) tissue (TG: 47.5 ± 9.5% vs. CG: 56.1 ± 9.5%) was found than in the CG. However, both xenografts showed comparable (n.s.) residual bone graft (TG: 23.7 ± 7.2% vs. CG: 21.1 ± 9.85.6%), bone-to-graft contacts (TG: 26.2 ± 9.8% vs. CG: 30.8 ± 13.8%), similar graft height reduction over time (TG: 12.9 ± 6.7% CG: 12.4 ± 5.8%) and implant survival/success rate (100%). At the 3-year post-loading evaluation, the peri-implant marginal bone loss (TG: 0.52 ± 0.19 mm; CG: 0.48 ± 0.15 mm) and the peri-implant health conditions (TG: 87.5%/CG: 81.2%) did not differ between implants inserted in both xenografts used.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of DPBM or DBBM for maxillary sinus augmentation is associated with comparable bone formation providing stable graft dimension combined with healthy peri-implant conditions.

Transsinusoidal lateral nasal floor augmentation for implant placement in the atrophic premaxilla: A within-patient, 5-year, prospective comparative study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical outcome for implants placed with transsinusoidal-lateral nasal cavity augmentation (NA) compared to implants placed in maxillary sinus augmentation (SA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 28 atrophic edentulous maxillary regions (14 patients bi-maxillary), a lateral window approach was used to perform transsinusoidal-lateral NA (TSLNA) combined with maxillary SA. After healing period of about 6 months, each patient received bimaxillary one anterior implant located in the pre-maxilla having lateral NA and 2-3 implants in the maxillary posterior region with SA. In a prospective follow-up evaluation, clinical implant outcome (survival/success rates) and peri-implant health (mucositis/peri-implantitis) were assessed and compared between implants placed in TSLNA (n = 28) and SA (n = 58).

RESULTS

At the year-1, year-3, and year-5 evaluation, neither patient-based nor implant-based comparisons revealed differences for marginal bone level reduction between implants placed in TSLNA (5-year overall: 1.11 ± 0.26 mm) and SA (5-year overall: 1.07 ± 0.30 mm), although with a significant (p < .001) continuous reduction over the observation time. At the year-5 evaluation, all implants (n = 86) and restorations (n = 14) were still in situ (survival 100%) and showed an implant-based incidence of peri-implant mucositis/peri-implantitis of 14.3%/0% in TSLNA and 6.9%/3.4% in SA corresponding to 21.4%/0% and 28.6%/7.1% for implant-based evaluation. In addition, the implant success rate did not differ between NA and SA at implant- (100%/ 98.8%) and patient-based (100%/97.6%) evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The findings obtained show TSLNA as an effective method for implant placement of adequate length and direction in the atrophic premaxilla providing for success rates comparable to those of implants placed in SA.

Efficacy of implantoplasty in management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review

Aim

Peri-implantitis causes progressive loss of the supporting bony structure around the dental implant. Implantoplasty mechanically removes contaminated threads to achieve smoother implant surface thus reducing the bacterial load enabling fibroblastic growth to stimulate the healing effect. This Systematic review is done to appraise the outcome of implantoplasty on surface quality of Implant (roughness), biocompatibility of implants in peri-implantitis cases.

Settings and Design

The Settings of the studies are major online databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online library. The design of the current study is systematic review of published qualitative studies.

Materials and Method

37 articles were identified for the present review and systematic electronic literature search was done from August 2022 to January 2023, via PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases [PRISMA guidelines]. In vitro studies on implantoplasty for peri-implantitis were included for the review. 2 examiners independently selected based on the inclusion criteria and recorded the necessary data.

Statistical Analysis Used

Risk of bias assessment tool was evaluated with Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and screened based on Selection, Comparability, and Outcome with the following categories: - maximum of 4, 2 and 4 points respectively. The observations were tabulated and analysed.

Results

Among the 8 selected studies, two studies reported no statistical difference between implantoplasty and control, one study proposed carbide burs were better than diamond burs, another study also suggested multilaminar burs were better than diamond and carbide. The Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) score for the quality of the included studies ranged from 6 to 8. Two of the studies had score of 6 points, eight had 7 points and one had 8 points.

Conclusion

Implantoplasty has been recommended as an efficacious treatment protocol for peri-implantitis that helps to diminish the inflammation and accompanied by a high success rate.

Incidence of Peri-Implantitis, Technical and Biological Complications of Single Implants Placed with Flap or Flapless Surgery-A 10-12-Year Case-Series

BACKGROUND

Long-term follow-up of single implants and crowns is scarce, especially when inserted using flapless surgery.

AIM

Evaluate survival, peri-implantitis incidence, and technical/biologic complications of solitary implants/crowns after 10-12 years of function.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

49 patients with 53 single implants, initially operated with a one-stage flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery and delayed loading, were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone-level changes compared to baseline, peri-implant health, and soft tissue aesthetics were registered. Differences in implant level between and within groups were statistically tested using the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively.

RESULTS

36 patients with 40 implants were reassessed, yielding 100% implant and 97.5% crown survival. The bone loss in F (n = 19) was 0.56 mm (SD 0.89; range -0.9-2.02) and -0.85 mm (SD 0.98; range -2.84-0.53) in FL (n = 21), indicative of bone gain in FL (p = 0.003), the latter due to a difference at baseline but bone-level was comparable (p = 0.126). Groups were comparable for probing pocket depth (PPD); (3.32 vs. 3.19 mm), Bleeding Index (BI); (0.15 vs. 0.22), and gingival recession; (0.38 vs. 0.17 mm). According to international criteria, the peri-implantitis incidence was 0%, but 32.5% of the implants/crowns experienced biological or technical complications irrespective of surgical technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Solitary implants and crowns show good long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant health. Flapless surgery is a good alternative to conventional in straightforward cases with sufficient bone volume and proper treatment planning.

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.

Peri-implant crevicular fluid and serum levels of soluble ST2 in peri-implant diseases: A pilot study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Soluble ST2 (sST2) is a current biomarker of cardiovascular disease. It is used to predict susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases and to analyze their prognosis. Serum sST2 level increases in inflammatory diseases such as periodontitis. However, the level of sST2 in peri-implant diseases and crevicular fluid has not been investigated yet. Thus, the aim of this cross-sectional study is to analyze the level of sST2 in peri-implant health and diseases.

METHODS

Sixty-nine participants were divided into 3 groups as peri-implant health (PH), peri-implant mucositis (PM), and peri-implantitis (P-I). Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) and serum samples were collected from each participant. The levels of sST2 and IL-6 in PICF and sST2, IL-6, and CRP in serum were compared between the groups. Pocket depth (PD), modified bleeding index (mBI), modified plaque index (mPI), keratinized mucosa index (KTW), and gingival/mucosal recession (REC) were recorded as clinical parameters. Biomarkers in the serum and PICF were analyzed by ELISA kit.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were included in the study. The differences in the following parameters were statistically significant between groups: age (p = .009), implant function time (p = .027), PD (p < .001), mBI (p < .001), mPI (p < .001), and KTW (p = .043). The PICF volume of P-I and PM groups were statistically higher than PH (p < .001). The amount of sST2 in P-I and PM groups were higher than PH (p = .043). Serum CRP was higher in the P-I group than in other groups (p = .034). There were no significant differences in serum sST2 (p = .247) and IL-6 (p = .110) levels between groups.

CONCLUSION

The PICF levels of sST2 were significantly higher in PM and P-I groups compared to the healthy group. However, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of serum sST2 level.

Soft tissue augmentation with a volume-stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft at implant sites: Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial post implant loading

BACKGROUND

Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG.

METHODS

Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading.

Peri-implant disease education and diagnosis in the pre-doctoral curriculum

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess how pre-doctoral periodontal programs in the United States of America are educating their dental students regarding the management of peri-implant diseases and secondarily, to determine if a current standard of teaching exists.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Electronic surveys were distributed to pre-doctoral program directors across 57 dental schools in the United States via a secure online survey system. The survey consisted of 19 questions pertaining to curriculum structure involving didactic and clinical management of peri-implant diseases.

RESULTS

A total of 25 program directors (44%) responded, and data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results indicated a lack of standardization of pre-doctoral didactic and clinical curriculum among dental schools.

CONCLUSIONS

Data pooled from 25 pre-doctoral periodontal programs in the United States show that there is currently no standardization in the dental school curriculum related to the didactic and clinical management of peri-implant diseases. The development of standardized content is recommended to assist program directors in assessing and enhancing educational experiences for dental students on the management of peri-implant diseases.

What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Peri-implantitis is a usual finding but estimates of its prevalence fluctuate very much. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. This systematic review aims to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis and the effect of different study designs, function times and use of probing depth on prevalence rate.

Methods

Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published from January 2005 to December 2021, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Fifty-seven articles were included in this study.

Results

Prevalence of peri-implantitis was 19.53% (95% CI 12.87–26.19) at the patient-level, and 12.53% (95% CI 11.67–13.39) at the implant-level and it remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition. The use of probing depth like diagnostic criteria affected the prevalence data.

Conclusion

The results indicate that it remains essential the identification of the diagnostic markers for more accurate disease classification.

Ultrasonographic Tissue Perfusion in Peri-implant Health and Disease

Color flow ultrasonography has played a crucial role in medicine for its ability to assess dynamic tissue perfusion and blood flow variations as an indicator of a pathologic condition. While this feature of ultrasound is routinely employed in various medical fields, its intraoral application for the assessment of tissue perfusion at diseased versus healthy dental implants has never been explored. We tested the hypothesis that quantified tissue perfusion of power Doppler ultrasonography correlates with the clinically assessed inflammation of dental implants. Specifically, we designed a discordant-matched case-control study in which patients with nonadjacent dental implants with different clinical diagnoses (healthy, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis) were scanned and analyzed with real-time ultrasonography. Forty-two posterior implants in 21 patients were included. Ultrasound scans were obtained at the implant regions of midbuccal, mesial/distal (averaged as interproximal), and transverse to compute the velocity- and power-weighted color pixel density from color velocity (CV) and color power (CP), respectively. Linear mixed effect models were then used to assess the relationship between the clinical diagnoses and ultrasound CV and CP. Overall, the results strongly suggested that ultrasound's quantified CV and CP directly correlate with the clinical diagnosis of dental implants at health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. This study showed for the first time that ultrasound color flow can be applicable in the diagnosis of peri-implant disease and can act as a valuable tool for evaluating the degree of clinical inflammation at implant sites.

Etiology, occurrence, and consequences of implant loss

Implant therapy aims at providing the patient with a functional and esthetically pleasing rehabilitation in a long‐term perspective. The loss of an implant constitutes a major complication, which may have an impact on the treatment plan and/or jeopardize the longevity of the restoration. Implant loss may occur during the phase of osseointegration (early) or at a later time when the previously achieved osseointegration is lost (late). The present work evaluates the evidence on the occurrence of both events and discusses etiology, risk factors, and consequences.

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.

Microbiome differences in periodontal, peri-implant, and healthy sites: a cross-sectional pilot study

OBJECTIVES

To explore microbial communities associated with health and disease status around teeth and dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 10 healthy, 24 periodontitis, and 24 peri-implant sites from 24 patients were sequenced by next-generation sequencing. Microbial DNA was extracted and 16S rRNA gene was amplified. Bioinformatic analyses were performed using quantitative insights into microbial ecology (QIIME), linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSE), and STAMP.

RESULTS

Differences in microbial diversity across three types of sites were not statistically significant. Several genera and species were more prevalent in healthy compared with diseased sites, including Lautropia, Rothia and Capnocytophaga and Kingella. Among diseased sites, Peptostreptococcaceae, Dialister, Mongibacterium, Atopobium, and Filifactor were over-represented in peri-implantitis sites, while Bacteroidales was more abundant in periodontitis sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Diseased periodontal and peri-implant sites and corresponding healthy sites have distinct microbiological profiles. These findings suggest that microbial analyses could identify biomarkers for periodontal health and disease and lead to the development of new strategies to improve periodontal health and treat peri-implant and periodontal diseases.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The study contributes to improving our understanding of healthy, periodontally affected, and peri-implantitis sites which can improve our ability to diagnose, monitor, and manage these oral conditions.

Immediately loaded implants simultaneously placed in fresh extraction and healed sites supporting four-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses using the all-on-4 concept: A 5-year prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone level for immediately loaded implants placed simultaneously in both fresh extraction sites (FES) and healed sites (HS) supporting a 4-implant supported mandibular fixed prosthesis (4-ISFMP) using the all-on-4 concept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 5-year prospective study was conducted in 24 patients (96 implants) treated with 4-ISFMP including 55 implants inserted in FES and 41 implants in HS. At implant placement (baseline) and at the 1^st -, 3^rd - and 5^th -year follow-up examinations, peri-implant marginal bone level was evaluated radiographically and compared between placement in FES and HS. Marginal bone loss was calculated as the difference in the marginal bone level evaluated at the follow-up periods. Additionally, implant and prosthesis survival rates as well as the presence of peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing+[BOP]) and peri-implantitis (BOP+ >2 mm MBL) were evaluated.

RESULTS

22/24 patients with 88/96 implants (dropout rate: 8.3%) were continually followed for 5 years (survival rate: 100%). Radiographically measured marginal bone level differed significantly between FES and HS at implant placement (1.46 ± 0.80 mm vs. 0.60 ± 0.70 mm; p < .001), at the 1-year (-0.04 ± 0.14 mm vs. -0.18 ± 0.20 mm; p = .002) and 3-year (-0.26 ± 0.49 mm vs. -0.58 ± 0.48 mm, p = .049), but not at the 5-year evaluation (-0.90 ± 0.66 mm vs. -1.00 ± 0.59 mm, p = .361). The marginal bone loss differed significantly (p < .001) between FES and HS between implant placement and the 1-year evaluation but not for the 1- to 3-year (p > .99) and the 3- to 5-year period (p = .082). At the 5-year follow-up evaluation, no implant/prosthesis failed (100% survival) and peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were noted in 41.2% and 11.7% at patient level and in 17.6% and 4.5% at implant level respectively.

CONCLUSION

Implants placed in FES showed a prolonged peri-implant remodelling process but provided for similar peri-implant marginal bone levels as implants placed in HS at the 5-year evaluation for immediately loaded 4-ISFMP.

Peri-Implant Diseases

Osseointegrated dental implants have become an increasingly popular modality of treatment for the replacement of absent or lost teeth because of its high rates of long-term survival when used to support various types of dental prostheses. However, complications and implant failure can still occur and are considered by many clinicians as a major obstacle for implant treatment. Biological complications mainly refer to inflammatory conditions of the soft tissues and bone surrounding implants and their restorative components, which are induced by the accumulation of bacterial biofilm. Two clinical varieties may be distinguished: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible, plaque-induced inflammatory lesion confined to the peri-implant soft tissue unit, whereas peri-implantitis is an extension of peri-implant mucositis to involve the bone supporting the implant. Diagnosing and managing these biological complications is of utmost importance for the implant surgeon and dental practitioner. This review encompasses the etiology, diagnostic aspects, prevention, and management of biological complications.

Association between Peri-implantitis and Cardiovascular Diseases: A Case-control Study

AIM

To assess the association between peri-implantitis and cardiovascular diseases (CVD).

METHODS

128 patients with dental implants were recruited to evaluate the prevalence of peri-implantitis in patients with or without CVD (Cases, n = 82, Controls, n = 46, respectively). Diagnosis of peri-implantitis followed the 2017 World Workshop guideline and the severity was defined as mild, moderate, and severe form when the radiographic bone loss (RBL) was < 2mm, 2-4mm, and > 4 mm. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to test the association between two diseases.

RESULTS

A trend of higher prevalence of peri-implantitis defined by detectable RBL beyond the physiologic bone remodeling was found in the "Cases" group (64.6%) when compared to the "Controls" (56.5%). A significant higher prevalence (48.8%) of moderate to severe peri-implantitis was identified in "Cases" compared to "Controls"(30.4%) with a significant crude association between moderate to severe peri-implantitis and CVD (odds ratio = 2.18, 95% CI = 1.02 to 4.67, p = 0.04). The CVD group had a trend of higher prevalence of deep pockets (≥ 7mm) and higher numbers of sites with bleeding upon probing (BOP) (> 66%) when compared to "Controls" (p> 0.05). However, after controlling for multiple confounders including age, hypertension, smoking, family history of heart attack, and periodontitis, the significant association was not found.

CONCLUSIONS

CVD group had significantly higher prevalence of moderate to severe peri-implantitis (RBL ≥ 2mm). The association between the two diseases did not exist after controlling multiple confounders for CVD. Future studies with a larger sample size controlling for the patient- and implant-related confounders are needed to better understand the link between peri-implantitis and cardiovascular disease. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Multilevel analysis of site, implant, and patient-level factors with peri-implant bleeding on probing: a cross sectional study

AIM

This study was to evaluate the association between peri-implant bleeding on probing in peri-implant diseases and its association with multilevel factors (site specific factors, implant factors, and patient level factors).

METHODOLOGY

A cross-sectional study involved consented adult patients with ≥ 1 dental implant. Two calibrated operators examined the patients. BoP was outcome variable and peri-implant gingival biotype was principal predictor variable. The effects of site, implant, and patient level factors on BoP were assessed using a multilevel logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Eighty patients for a total of 119 implants and 714 sites were included in the study. Bleeding on probing was observed in 42 implants (35.29%) with a significant higher risk observed in presence of gingival recession, thin peri-implant gingival biotype, duration of implant placement, smokers, and male patients.

CONCLUSION

Peri-implant bleeding on probing was associated with site specific, implant, and patient level factors.

At which bone level are implants explanted?

OBJECTIVES

Clear guidelines when to remove an implant are missing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the amount of peri-implant bone loss at explantation by specialists.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Implantology specialists were asked to provide implants explanted due to peri-implantitis with related clinical information. Early failures (survival time <12 months) were analyzed separately. Questionnaires inquired age, sex, smoking, implant location, usage of bone substitutes, and implant brand. Explants were measured and bone loss was assessed using radiographs. Covariate-adjusted mixed-effects models were evaluated for bone loss and survival time.

RESULTS

Twelve dental offices provided 192 explants from 161 patients with 99 related radiographs. Thirty-three (17.2%) explants were early failures. Excluding early failures, average survival time was 9.5 ± 5.8 years with absolute and relative bone loss of 7.0 ± 2.7 mm and 66.2 ± 23.7%, respectively. Late failures were removed at mean bone loss of 57.7% in the maxilla and 73.7% in the mandible irrespective of survival time. In fully adjusted mixed-effects models, only age at implantation (B = -0.19; 95% CI: -0.27, -0.10) remained a significant factor for survival time. Implants exhibited significantly more relative bone loss if they were positioned in the mandible (B = 17.3; 95% CI: 3.91, 30.72) or if they were shorter (B = -2.79; 95% CI: -5.50, -0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Though the mean bone loss (66.2%) at which implants were explanted was in accordance with the literature, its wide variation and differentiation between jaws showed that the profession has no universally accepted threshold beyond which an implant cannot be preserved.

On marginal bone level changes around dental implants

BACKGROUND

Peri-implant bone level values have been used as the clinical standard of reference to describe the status of a dental implant, despite the fact that their significance for the long-term survival of the implant has never been properly assessed.

PURPOSE

To challenge the assumption that the natural course of peri-implant bone loss is the loss of the implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article is a narrative review on reasons and interpretations of marginal bone level changes around dental implants.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Different views regarding the pattern and progression of marginal bone loss depending on dental specialties have been identified. However, the present finding of a negative correlation between an increasing cumulative marginal bone loss and a decreasing risk of implant failures over time indicates that peri-implant marginal bone loss does not necessarily represent a condition of disease. Reduction of marginal bone levels may be observed in a majority of patients during follow-up time, with only a minority of those patients losing implants and implant-supported prostheses in the long term. Bone level changes seem often to occur as a consequence of physiological processes and/or as an adaptation to altered external as well as host response factors. Periodical radiological assessments of implant-restorations remain a valid diagnostic tool for the detection of potential implant fractures, loss of osseointegration, screws working loose and for the detection of the few cases with advanced, continuously progressing marginal bone loss during time. The detection of peri-implant marginal bone loss at one time point should not be immediately considered as a sign of ongoing pathology and of an increased risk of future loss of the implant in question.

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.

Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri-implant diseases: a university-representative cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To study the symptoms and perception reported by patients with peri-implant diseases, as well as their signs and their potential impact on the oral health quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two hundred and forty randomly selected patients were invited to participate. As part of the history assessment, the patient OHIP-14Sp was evaluated together with, for each implant, the patient perception regarding the peri-implant health status and the history of pain, spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, suppuration, swelling, and discomfort during brushing. As part of the clinical examination, the following potential signs of peri-implant diseases were collected: probing pocket depth (PPD), mucosal dehiscence (MD), extent of BoP, presence of SoP, and visual signs of redness and swelling. Those parameters were analyzed in relation to the actual peri-implant health diagnosis.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were studied. Even in case of peri-implantitis, 88.9% of the implants were perceived by the patients as healthy. The total OHIP-14Sp sum score did not differ in relation to the peri-implant health diagnosis. Increased reports of spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, swelling, and discomfort during brushing were observed in presence of disease. However, only a minor proportion of implants with peri-implant diseases presented symptoms. PPD ≥ 6 mm was more frequent in diseased than in healthy implants (p < .01), while PPD ≥ 8 in pre-peri-implantitis/peri-implantitis than in healthy/mucositis implants (p < .01). Implants with peri-implantitis showed higher MD than implants without peri-implantitis (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

Peri-implant diseases are in most cases asymptomatic and not perceived by the patients. Despite being unable to accurately discriminate between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, PPD and MD resulted as the only two clinical signs associated with pre-peri-implantitis/peri-implantitis.

The impact of a change in classification criteria on the prevalence of peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding but estimates of its prevalence vary widely. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. In 2017 the World Workshop on Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions established new criteria for disease definitions. The aim of this study is to assess the potential impact of a new definition on the future reporting of peri-implant disease.

METHODS

Data from a 2015 report of peri-implant prevalence were examined using the new diagnostic criteria. This cross-sectional study was performed on 95 patients with 220 implants who had their implants placed between 1998 and 2003. An examiner masked to the previous diagnosis examined the radiographs and patient data to make a diagnosis based on 3 mm of bone loss from the expected level of bone. This reanalysis was used to calculate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and generate new relative risk indicators.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time for the patients was 10.9 years. Using the 2017 criteria, peri-implant mucositis was found in 35.3% of the implants and 52.2% of the subjects, and peri-implantitis occurred in 8.7% of the implants and 15.2% of the subjects. This constituted a drop in peri-implantitis at both patient and implant level of nearly 50% from the prior analysis. Smoking at time of implant placement emerged as a new risk factor in this analysis that was not identified in the prior analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The new diagnostic criteria significantly reduce the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis and bring new risk factors into focus.

A retrospective cohort study on peri-implant complications in implants up to 10 years of functional loading in periodontally compromised patients

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of peri-implantitis is directly proportional to the time of functional loading. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the survival and success rates as well as the incidence of peri-implantitis among patients with a history of periodontitis and among implants with 1 to 10 years of functional loading.

METHODS

We evaluated clinical records of periodontally compromised patients treated between January 1998 and July 2002, with implants enrolled in a supportive periodontal and peri-implant treatment follow-up program. The following assessment indexes during follow-up were recorded: suppuration on probing, modified bleeding on probing, probing depth, implant mobility, bone changes, and criteria of success of Albrektsson.

RESULTS

Clinical data of 475 patients with 1,991 implants were analyzed for a period of 10 years of functional loading. The survival and success rates were 91.8% and 75.4%, respectively, and the cumulative incidence of peri-implantitis among patients was 24.4%. The survival rate was 96.1%, and the success rate was 83.7% among implants. The incidence of peri-implantitis exhibited a peak rate after the seventh year (2.1%). The prevalence of peri-implantitis increased from 3.2% to 9.7% between 5 and 10 years of follow-up, and the peri-implantitis rate among implants was 12.9% after 10 years of functional loading.

CONCLUSION

Peri-implantitis begins to appear more frequently after the fifth year of functional loading, especially between the seventh and eighth years of function.

The Long-Term Effect of Smoking on 10 Years' Survival and Success of Dental Implants: A Prospective Analysis of 453 Implants in a Non-University Setting

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the survival and peri-implant bone loss of implants with a fluoride-modified surface in smokers and non-smokers. Material and Methods: All patients referred for implant treatment between November 2004 and 2007 were scrutinized. All implants were placed by the same surgeon (B.C.). The single inclusion criterion was a follow-up time of at least 10 years. Implant survival, health, and bone loss were evaluated by an external calibrated examiner (S.W.) during recall visits. Radiographs taken at recall visits were compared with the post-surgical ones. Implant success was based on two arbitrarily chosen success criteria for bone loss (≤1 mm and ≤2 mm bone loss after 10 years). Implant survival in smokers and non-smokers was compared using the log-rank test. Both non-parametric tests and fixed model analysis were used to assess bone loss in both groups. Results: A total of 453 implants in 121 patients were included for survival analysis, and 397 implants in 121 patients were included for peri-implant bone-loss analysis. After a mean follow-up time of 11.38 years (SD 0.78; range 10.00–13.65), 33 implants out of 453 initially placed had failed in 21 patients, giving an overall survival rate of 92.7% and 82.6% on the implant and patient level, respectively. Cumulative 10 years’ survival rate was 81% on the patient level and 91% on the implant level. The hazard of implant loss in the maxilla was 5.64 times higher in smokers compared to non-smokers (p = 0.003). The hazard of implant loss for implants of non-smokers was 2.92 times higher in the mandible compared to the maxilla (p = 0.01). The overall mean bone loss was 0.97 mm (SD 1.79, range 0–17) at the implant level and 0.90 mm (SD 1.39, range 0–7.85) at the patient level. Smokers lost significantly more bone compared to non-smokers in the maxilla (p = 0.024) but not in the mandible. Only the maxilla showed a significant difference in the probability of implant success between smokers and non-smokers (≤1 mm criterion p = 0.003, ≤2 mm criterion p = 0.007). Taking jaw into account, implants in smokers experienced a 2.6 higher risk of developing peri-implantitis compared to non-smokers (p = 0.053). Conclusion: Dental implants with a fluoride-modified surface provided a high 10 years’ survival with limited bone loss. Smokers were, however, more prone to peri-implant bone loss and experienced a higher rate of implant failure, especially in the upper jaw. The overall bone loss over time was significantly higher in smoking patients, which might be suggestive for a higher peri-implantitis risk. Hence, smoking cessation should be advised and maintained after implant placement from the perspective of peri-implant disease prevention.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implantitis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview on peri-implantitis for the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: 1) definition of peri-implantitis; 2) conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis, 3) onset and pattern of disease progression, 4) characteristics of peri-implantitis, 5) risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis, and 6) progressive crestal bone loss in the absence of soft tissue inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

Peri-implantitis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview on peri-implantitis for the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: 1) definition of peri-implantitis; 2) conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis, 3) onset and pattern of disease progression, 4) characteristics of peri-implantitis, 5) risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis, and 6) progressive crestal bone loss in the absence of soft tissue inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Prevalence of Periimplant Diseases

PURPOSE

To report the prevalence of periimplant diseases (ie, periimplant mucositis and periimplantitis).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE through PubMed database of the US National Library of Medicine for articles published until March 2018 using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms complemented by free terms and in different combinations.

RESULTS

A wide range of prevalences of periimplant diseases has been reported in the literature. Subject-based estimated weighted mean prevalences and ranges were reported to amount to 43% (range: 19%-65%) for periimplant mucositis and to 22% (range: 1%-47%) for periimplantitis.

CONCLUSION

Differences in case definitions impact on extent and severity of periimplant diseases and make comparisons among studies difficult. Convenience samples rather than randomly selected population samples are often analyzed to estimate prevalence of periimplant diseases. More recent studies report implant- and subject-based prevalences of periimplant diseases.

Evaluation of Crestal Bone Loss Around Straight and Tilted Implants in Patients Rehabilitated by Immediate-Loaded Full-Arch All-on-4 or All-on-6: A Prospective Study

The aim of this prospective study was to compare implant success rate and crestal bone loss around tilted and straight implants supporting immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitations. Twenty consecutive patients with edentulous jaws treated between June 2013 and July 2015 who satisfied all inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. All patients were rehabilitated through a full-arch restoration supported by 4 or 6 immediately loaded implants. Clinical and radiographic examinations were scheduled every 12 months to evaluate implant success rates and crestal bone levels. Significant differences in crestal bone levels and success rates between straight and tilted implants were investigated by means of independent statistical analysis; differences were regarded as significant if P < .05. Seventy straight and 50 tilted implants were placed to rehabilitate 14 mandibles and 12 maxillae in 20 patients. After a follow-up of 12 to 36 months, survival rate was 97.1% for straight implants and 96.0% for tilted implants; while success rates were 94.3% and 94.0%, respectively. Success and survival rates were not significantly different (P > .05). Change in crestal bone level was 0.5 ± 0.4 mm for straight implants and 0.6 ± 0.4 mm for tilted implants (P > .05). Straight and tilted implants seemed to have similar behavior after immediate loading rehabilitations. After functional loading, straight and tilted implants did not differ significantly in clinical outcome.

Preliminary Study to Evaluate Marginal Bone Loss in Cases of 2- and 3-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses of the Posterior Mandible

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate, by radiographic examinations, the marginal bone resorption around implants in cases of 2 and 3 implant-supported fixed partial prostheses (FPPs) at the posterior mandible.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 41 patients (23 males, 18 females) of an average age of 67 years (range, 53-85), with 2 and 3 implants-supported FPPs in the posterior mandible that were treated during 2006 to 2015. The mean follow-up time was 6.32 years (range, 2-10). Twenty-four patients had FPPs on 2 implants (a total of 48 implants). Seventeen patients had FPPs on 3 implants (a total of 51 implants). Clinical and radiographic follow-up examinations were performed. All radiographs were analyzed for changes in marginal bone height surrounding the implants.

RESULTS

The mean marginal bone loss around the most mesial implant was slightly higher in the 2-implant group (0.833 mm) compared with the 3-implant group (0.431 mm). The correlation between the mean marginal bone loss around the most mesial implant and the number of implants was of borderline value (P = 0.055).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the limitations of this preliminary study, the authors found that the mesial implant in the 2-implant group is more susceptible to marginal bone loss.

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

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

Is Peri-Implant Probing Causing Over-Diagnosis and Over-Treatment of Dental Implants?

Pocket probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) measurements are useful indices for the assessment of periodontal conditions. The same periodontal indices are commonly recommended to evaluate the dental implant/tissue interface to identify sites with mucositis and peri-implantitis, which, if not treated, are anticipated to lead to implant failure. The aim of the present narrative review is to discuss the available literature on the effectiveness of probing at dental implants for identification of peri-implant pathology. There is substantial clinical evidence that PPD and BOP measurements are very poor indices of peri-implant tissue conditions and are questionable surrogate endpoints for implant failure. On the contrary, the literature suggests that frequent disturbance of the soft tissue barrier at implants may instead induce inflammation and bone resorption. Moreover, over-diagnosis and subsequent unnecessary treatment may lead to iatrogenic damage to the implant-tissue interface. Despite this, the recommendations from recent consensus meetings are still promoting the use of probing at dental implants. For evaluation of implants, for instance at annual check-ups, the present authors recommend a clinical examination that includes (i) a visual inspection of the peri-implant tissues for the assessment of oral hygiene and the detection of potential redness, swelling, (ii) palpation of the peri-implant tissues for assessment of the potential presence of swelling, bleeding, suppuration. In addition, (iii) radiography is recommended for the assessment of crestal bone level for comparison with previous radiographs to evaluate potential progressive bone loss even if there is a need for more scientific evidence of the true value of the first two clinical testing modes.

Is Peri-Implantitis Curable?

Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are clinically associated with inflammation of soft tissue around implants; however, peri-implantitis is associated with radiographic bone loss. Recently a new classification scheme-peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant soft-tissue and hard-tissue deficiencies-was introduced. Although various clinical interventions to treat peri-implant diseases have been suggested, early diagnosis and treatment is the key to successful outcomes. Clinicians can select nonsurgical or surgical techniques according to the clinical parameters present, although surgical intervention seems to be more effective in treating peri-implantitis. The best approach to treat peri-implantitis remains controversial.

How do peri-implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri-implantitis? A critical review

Objectives

The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.

Materials and methods

Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.

Results

Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.

Conclusion

Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

Assessment of Dental Implants with Modified Calcium-Phosphate Surface in a Multicenter, Prospective, Non-Interventional Study: Results up to 50 Months of Follow-Up

Prescription of implant treatments is very widespread at present, mainly due to the low rate of annual loss and, to date, few studies have assessed their survival in the routine clinical practice of dentistry. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate the effectiveness of dental implants with a calcium-phosphate surface in the daily practice of dental clinics. A multicenter, prospective, non-interventional, observational study was performed, in which three experienced practitioners (one maxillofacial and two oral surgeons) inserted implants using standard external and internal hexagon connections in adult patients requiring ≥1 osseointegrated implants to replace missing teeth. Follow-up was performed for 24 months after implant loading. Two hundred and twelve subjects were included (51.5% men), with a mean age of 51.2 ± 11.90 years, in whom 544 implants were inserted. 87.2% of the patients received 1–4 implants. The preferred connection system was internal hexagon (73.5%). There were nine failures, with an interval survival rate (ISR) at 24 months of 100% and a cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 98.3%. In conclusion, implants with a modified calcium-phosphate surface are associated with a high rate of survival and may be considered a method of choice in clinical practice.

Effects of lateral bone augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review evaluated the evidence on the effect of the interventions aimed for lateral ridge augmentation (both simultaneously with implant placement or as a staged procedure) on peri-implant health or disease.

METHODS

A protocol was developed to answer the following PICO question: "In patients with horizontal alveolar ridge deficiencies (population), what is the effect of lateral bone augmentation procedures (intervention and comparison) on peri-implant health (outcome)?" Included studies were randomised controlled trials or controlled clinical trials with a follow-up of at least 12 months after implant loading. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible, including subgroup analysis based on follow-up.

RESULTS

Twelve final publications from eight investigations were included. The results from the meta-analysis indicated that irrespective of the type of intervention, the inflammatory changes, based on bleeding on probing (%) were minimal, both at short- (n = 1; weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.00; 95% CI [-14.04; 12.04]; p = .881) and long-term (n = 5; WMD = -5.63; 95% CI [-18.42; 7.16]; p = .881). When comparing different treatment modalities, no significant differences were observed (n = 6; WMD = -3.36; 95% CI [-12.49; 5.77]; p < .471). Similarly, changes in probing pocket depth and marginal bone levels were not significantly different among groups. The incidence of peri-implantitis was evaluated in three investigations and varied from 16% to 26% after a follow-up period of 6-8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis have shown that lateral ridge augmentation procedures can maintain peri-implant health over time with low mucosal inflammatory changes and a relatively small incidence of peri-implant bone loss.

Diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography in assessing peri-implant bone loss: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in the assessment of peri-implant bone loss and analyze its influencing factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical and preclinical studies reporting diagnostic outcomes of CBCT imaging of peri-implant bone loss compared to direct reference measurements were sought by searching five electronic databases, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CINAHL Plus, and OpenGrey. QUADAS-2 criteria were adapted for quality analysis of the included studies. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Two meta-analysis models (random-effects and mixed-effects) summarized the area under receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve observations reported in the selected studies. The mixed-effects meta-analysis model evaluated three possible influencing factors, "defect type," "defect size," and "study effect."

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 3,716 titles, from which 18 studies (13 in vitro and 5 animal) were included. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT was fair to excellent in detecting in vitro circumferential-intrabony and fenestration defects, but moderate to low for peri-implant dehiscences, and tended to be higher for larger defect sizes. Both, over- and underestimation of linear measurements were reported for the animal models. The meta-analyses included 37 AUC observations from eight studies. The random-effects model showed significant heterogeneity. The mixed-effects model exhibited also significant but lower heterogeneity, and "defect type" and "study effect" significantly influenced the variability of AUC observations.

CONCLUSION

In vitro, CBCT performs well in detecting peri-implant circumferential-intrabony or fenestration defects but less in depicting dehiscences. Influencing factors due to other site-related and technical parameters on the diagnostic outcome need to be addressed further in the future studies.

Quantitative measurement of peri-implant bone defects using optical coherence tomography

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to visualize and identify peri-implant bone defects in optical coherence tomography (OCT) images and to obtain quantitative measurements of the defect depth.

Methods

Dehiscence defects were intentionally formed in porcine mandibles and implants were simultaneously placed without flap elevation. Only the threads of the fixture could be seen at the bone defect site in the OCT images, so the depth of the peri-implant bone defect could be measured through the length of the visible threads. To analyze the reliability of the OCT measurements, the flaps were elevated and the depth of the dehiscence defects was measured with a digital caliper.

Results

The average defect depth measured by a digital caliper was 4.88±1.28 mm, and the corresponding OCT measurement was 5.11±1.33 mm. Very thin bone areas that were sufficiently transparent in the coronal portion were penetrated by the optical beam in OCT imaging and regarded as bone loss. The intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 methods was high, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) close to 1. In the Bland-Altman analysis, most measured values were within the threshold of the 95% CI, suggesting close agreement of the OCT measurements with the caliper measurements.

Conclusions

OCT images can be used to visualize the peri-implant bone level and to identify bone defects. The potential of quantitative non-invasive measurements of the amount of bone loss was also confirmed.