Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatments

Air-polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal for the treatment of gingivitis: A 12-month, split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the advantages of a novel protocol involving full-mouth erythritol-powder air-polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal in the maintenance of patients treated for gingivitis, with a focus on time and comfort.

METHODS

Systemically healthy patients with gingivitis were selected. Following a split-mouth design, quadrants 1-4 and 2-3 were randomly allocated to receive air-polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal following a protocol known as Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) or traditional full-mouth ultrasonic debridement followed by polishing with a rubber cup and prophylactic paste (US + P). Bleeding on probing (BoP) and the plaque index (PI) were collected at baseline (T0), 2 weeks (T1), 4 weeks (T2), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T4) and 12 months (T5). Following the same randomization, prophylactic therapy was provided at 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T4). Clinical parameters, treatment time and patient comfort and satisfaction were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients were selected, 39 completed the study. The clinical parameters were clinically satisfactory for both treatments at every time. At 4 months after treatment, GBT maintained significantly lower BoP and PI. GBT protocol required a significantly lower treatment time, especially at T3 and T4, when it saved 24.5% and 25.1% of the time, respectively. Both treatments were rated positively by most patients. However, GBT was perceived as more comfortable, and a higher number of patients preferred it.

CONCLUSION

No significant difference was observed between GBT and conventional ultrasonic debridement and rubber cup polishing in terms of BoP and PI levels. The GBT protocol allowed less time expenditure and higher patients' perceived comfort.

BSP Implementation of prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases - The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVES

to adapt the supranational European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline for UK healthcare environment, taking into account a broad range of views from stakeholders and patients.

SOURCES

This UK version, based on the supranational EFP guideline [1] published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, was developed using S3-level methodology, combining assessment of formal evidence from 13 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 55 clinical recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases, based on the classification for periodontal and peri‑implant diseases and conditions [2].

METHODOLOGY

The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework, following the S3-process, the underlying evidence was updated and a representative guideline group of 111 delegates from 26 stakeholder organisations was assembled into four working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the UK healthcare community including the public.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The S3-level-guidelines combine evaluation of formal evidence, grading of recommendations and synthesis with clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. The international S3-level-guideline was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system, facilitating a consistent, interdisciplinary, evidence-based approach with public involvement 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.

The Use of Enamel Matrix Derivative during Surgical Therapy for Peri-Implantitis: A Case Series

Peri-implantitis is a growing concern and currently, there is no agreement on the best method for treating this condition. This study looked at surgical intervention with the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) for treating this condition. A cohort of 25 (34 implants) consecutive patients treated with EMD for peri-implantitis was followed for up to 6.4 years. The survival of the implants as well as changes in clinical parameters are reported. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t tests and general estimating equations. The mean length of time implants were followed post-surgery was 3.05 ± 1.53 years. All but two of the treated implants survived in function (94%). Both failed implants were lost in the same patient, who was a heavy smoker. The changes in mean probing depth (1.94 ± 1.18 mm), change in deepest probing depth (3.12 ± 1.45 mm), and reduction in bleeding on probing (73.6 ± 43.9%) according to patient means were all highly significant (p < 0.001 for all changes). When EMD is used during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, there is a high survival rate of implants and significant improvements in clinical parameters.

The relationship between leptin and periodontitis: a literature review

Leptin is a peptide hormone that regulates energy balance, immune inflammatory response, and bone metabolism. Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between leptin and periodontitis, a local inflammatory disease that progressively weakens the supporting structures of the teeth, eventually leading to tooth loss. This article reviews the existing literature and discusses leptin's basic characteristics, its relationship with periodontitis, and its effects on periodontal tissue metabolism.

Do Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy and Low-Level Laser Therapy Influence Oral Health-Related Quality of Life After Molar Extraction?

PURPOSE

Most individuals experience significant deterioration in their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in the first few days after tooth extraction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) protocols on OHRQoL after extraction of lower molars.

METHODS

The investigators designed a double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial study. Patients with indications for lower molar extraction were included in the study and randomized into four groups: control group, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy group, LLLT group (LLLT.G), and aPDT and LLLT group (aPDT + LLLT.G).The Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) questionnaire was used through an interview with the participants before the extraction (T0 - baseline) and on the 7th (T1) and 30th (T2) days after extraction. Other variables were age, sex, ethnicity, decayed-missing-filled teeth (DMFT) and tooth types. Appropriate univariate and bivariate statistics were computed, and statistical significance was set at a value P < .05.

RESULTS

The sample was composed of 40 patients with a mean age of 41.25 ± 13.97 and 25 (62.5%) were women. The mean OHIP-14 scores were significantly different in the intervals at T0 versus T1 and T0 versus T2 for all domains (P < .001), demonstrating a positive impact on the OHRQoL. The total scores indicated a significant improvement in the OHRQoL in the aPDT (7.10, standard deviation 4.18, P = .043), LLLT (6.40, SD 5.87, P = .025), and aPDT + LLLT (5.30, SD 3.59, P = .012) groups compared to that in the control group (12.90, SD 6.64) at T1. Patients undergoing extraction of lower mandibular molars with aPDT + LLLT had the lowest mean OHIP-14 total score at T1 (5.30) and T2 (0.70).

CONCLUSION

The aPDT and LLLT protocols had a positive impact on the participants' OHRQoL. These procedures can be applied in everyday surgical practice.

Alveolar ridge preservation: Complications and cost-effectiveness

Alveolar ridge preservation is routinely indicated in clinical practice with the purpose of attenuating postextraction ridge atrophy. Over the past two decades numerous clinical studies and reviews on this topic have populated the literature. In recent years the focus has primarily been on analyzing efficacy outcomes pertaining to postextraction dimensional changes, whereas other relevant facets of alveolar ridge preservation therapy have remained unexplored. With this premise, we carried out a comprehensive evidence-based assessment of the complications associated with different modalities of alveolar ridge preservation and modeled the cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic modalities as a function of changes in ridge width and height. We conclude that, among allogeneic and xenogeneic bone graft materials, increased expenditure does not translate into increased effectiveness of alveolar ridge preservation therapy. On the other hand, a significant association between expenditure on a barrier membrane and reduced horizontal and vertical ridge resorption was observed, though only to a certain degree, beyond which the return on investment was significantly diminished.

Significance of barrier membrane on the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this trial was to investigate the clinical and radiographic significance of using a mixture of mineralized and demineralized allografts in combination (M) or not (NM) with a resorbable cross-linked barrier membrane in the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis defects.

METHODS

A two-arm randomized clinical trial was performed in patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis that exhibited contained defects. Clinical parameters were recorded at baseline (T₀ ), 6 months (T₁ ), and 12 months (T₂ ). Radiographic parameters were recorded at T₀ and T₂ . A composite criterion for disease resolution was defined a priori. A generalized linear model of repeated measures with generalized estimation equation statistical methods was used.

RESULTS

Overall, 33 patients (n_implants  = 48) completed the study. At T₂ , mean disease resolution was 77.1%. The use of a barrier membrane did not enhance the probability of disease resolution at T₂ (odds ratio [OR] = 1.55, p = 0.737). Conversely, the odds of disease resolution were statistically associated with the modified plaque index recorded at T₀ (OR = 0.13, p = 0.006) and keratinized mucosa width (OR = 2.10, p = 0.035). Moreover, women exhibited greater odds to show disease resolution (OR = 5.56, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Reconstructive therapy by means of a mixture of mineralized and demineralized allografts is effective in clinically resolving peri-implantitis and in gaining radiographic marginal bone level. The addition of a barrier membrane to reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis does not seem to enhance the outcomes of contained bone defects (NCT05282667).

Fitting pieces into the puzzle: The impact of titanium-based dental implant surface modifications on bacterial accumulation and polymicrobial infections

Polymicrobial infection is the main cause of dental implant failure. Although numerous studies have reported the ability of titanium (Ti) surface modifications to inhibit microbial adhesion and biofilm accumulation, the majority of solutions for the utilization of Ti antibacterial surfaces have been testedin in vitro and animal models, with only a few developed surfaces progressing into clinical research. Motivated by this huge gap, we critically reviewed the scientific literature on the existing antibacterial Ti surfaces to help understand these surfaces' impact on the "puzzle" of undesirable dental implant-related infections. This manuscript comprises three main sections: (i) a narrative review on topics related to oral biofilm formation, bacterial-implant surface interactions, and on how implant-surface modifications can influence microbial accumulation; (ii) a critical evidence-based review to summarize pre-clinical and clinical studies in an attempt to "fit pieces into the puzzle" to unveil the best way to reduce microbial loads and control polymicrobial infection around dental implants showed by the current in vivo evidence; and (iii) discussion and recommendations for future research testing emerging antibacterial implant surfaces, connecting basic science and the requirements for future clinical translation. The findings of the present review suggest no consensus regarding the best available Ti surface to reduce bacterial colonization on dental implants. Smart release or on-demand activation surface coatings are a "new piece of the puzzle", which may be the most effective alternative for reducing microbial colonization on Ti surfaces, and future studies should focus on these technologies.

Peri-Implant Health and the Knowing-Doing Gap—A Digital Survey on Procedures and Therapies

Objectives: Peri-implant tissue maintenance and treatment is becoming a serious challenge in implantology. With increasing numbers of implants being placed, more cases of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is seen. A digital survey on peri-implant disease management was issued to experts in periodontology and implantology to identify the tools and procedures most commonly used today to treat peri-implant diseases and successfully manage peri-implant health. The primary aim was to assess whether there is consensus in the choice of treatment to manage peri-implant diseases and to prevent their recurrence once treated. The secondary aim was to obtain insight into future protocols and /or devices, and the research and development needed.

Materials and Methods: Participants in this digital survey were professionals specialising in periodontology, oral surgery, and implant dentistry. The questionnaire included both a series of closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 16 countries participated. The survey was sent by e-mail to 70 individuals, 66 received the survey and 37 of receivers responded, two of the participants were excluded due to insufficient filling of the survey. In the end 35 respondents completed the survey.

Results: Respondents agree that the efficacy of mechanical and chemical decontamination of implant surfaces needs to be improved and better documented. It is a common opinion that the current remedies, mostly adapted from periodontal practises, do not provide effective and reliable clinical outcomes when treating peri-implant ailments. There is a general agreement amongst experts that regularly scheduled (3–6-month intervals) maintenance treatments are essential for maintaining peri-implant health in patients experiencing implant complications. Respondents are also concerned about unnecessary use of systemic antibiotics for managing peri-implant health.

Conclusion: Regardless of agreements in parts, there was no observed consensus on the most effective treatment options for treating peri-implantitis. The experts all agree it is an urgent need for well-designed, long-term follow-up randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing interventions to provide an evidence-based strategy for peri-implant health management.

Adjunctive Er:YAG laser in non-surgical periodontal therapy of patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus: A split-mouth randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Limited studies are available comparing the outcomes of non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) with or without adjunctive Er:YAG laser (ERL) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study evaluated the effects of ERL adjunctive NSPT on single-rooted teeth of inadequately controlled T2DM patients with periodontitis.

METHODS

Twenty-two inadequately controlled T2DM participants with periodontitis were recruited. Adopting a double-blinded split-mouth design and under block randomization, we investigated the effects of ERL in calculus removal then degranulation mode, or a sham treatment, adjunct NSPT, which included two visits of full-mouth root surface debridement delivered within 4-10 days, to test or control single-rooted teeth (Wuxi Stomatology Hospital, trial 2017-016). We followed periodontal parameters (plaque %, bleeding on probing [BOP] %, probing pocket depth [PPD], probing attachment level [PAL]) and selected systemic parameters (fasting plasma glucose [FPG], glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c%], high sensitivity C-reactive protein) at baseline, one, three, and six months after periodontal treatment.

RESULTS

The study was completed as planned. Periodontal parameters, FPG and HbA1c% of the 22 participants appeared significantly improved at six months (p < 0.001). The 44 ERL treated, compared to 44 sham treated single-rooted teeth exhibited significant improvement in BOP, mean PPD, and mean PAL at various postoperative follow-up time points (effect size ≥0.44; p < 0.001). No adverse event was reported.

CONCLUSION

Periodontal treatment outcomes in the T2DM patients with inadequate glycemic control were better in the single-rooted teeth received ERL adjunct NSPT. Further studies are warranted to confirm the observations reported in this short-term clinical study.

In vitro Interactions between Streptococcus intermedius and Streptococcus salivarius K12 on a Titanium Cylindrical Surface

Peri-implantitis is a steadily rising disease and is caused by oral bacterial pathogens able to form biofilm on implant surfaces and peri-implant tissues, making antibiotics treatment less effective. The use of commercial probiotics against oral pathogens could serve as an alternative to prevent biofilm formation. Streptococcus intermedius is one of the early colonizers of biofilm formation in dental implants. The aim of this study was to model the interaction between S. intermedius and Streptococcus salivarius strain K12, a probiotic bacterium producing bacteriocins. S. intermedius was co-cultured with S. salivarius K12 in an in vitro model simulating the biofilm formation in a dental implant composed by a titanium cylinder system. Biofilm formation rate was assessed by Real-Time PCR quantification of bacterial count and expression levels of luxS gene, used in response to cell density in the biofilm. Biofilm formation, bacteriocin production, luxS expression patterns were found to be already expressed within the first 12 h. More importantly, S. salivarius K12 was able to counter the biofilm formation in a titanium cylinder under the tested condition. In conclusion, our dental implant model may be useful for exploring probiotic-pathogen interaction to find an alternative to antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment.

Short-term comparison of two non-surgical treatment modalities of peri-implantitis: Clinical and microbiological outcomes in a two-factorial randomized controlled trial

AIM

To compare the efficacy of two different therapies (amino acid glycine abrasive powder and a desiccant material) and their combination in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was an examiner-blind randomized clinical trial, with 2-factorial design with a follow-up of 6 months. The combination of the two factors resulted in four interventions: (a) non-surgical debridement alone (C); (b) non-surgical debridement and a desiccant material (H); (c) non-surgical debridement and glycine powder (G); and (d) non-surgical debridement, desiccant material and glycine powder (HG).

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients with peri-implantitis were randomized, 16 for each intervention. After six months, two implants failed in the G intervention. Mean pocket depth reduction was higher in patients treated with the desiccant material (estimated difference: 0.5 mm; 95% CI from 0.1 to 0.9 mm, p = .0229) while there was no difference in the patients treated with glycine powder (estimated difference: 0.1 mm; 95% CI from -0.3 to 0.5 mm, p = .7333). VAS for pain during intervention and VAS for pain after one week were higher for patients treated with glycine powder (p = .0056 and p = .0339, respectively). The success criteria and other variables did not reveal differences between interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

In this 6-month follow-up study, pocket reduction was more pronounced in patients using the desiccant material. Pain was higher in patients using glycine. All the interventions resulted in low success rate.

Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis with Repeated Application of Chlorhexidine Chips or Gel during Supportive Therapy - A Randomized Clinical Trial

Running head

Peri-implant maintenance with CHX

Abstract

Background: To assess the effect of chlorhexidine (CHX) chip application in patients with peri-implant mucositis as compared to CHX gel application. Methods: In peri-implant sites with mucositis, CHX gel was applied in the control group (GC) and CHX chips in the test group (CC) at baseline and after three months. At baseline and after six months, peri-implant pocket depths (PPD), bleeding-on-probing (BOP) and activated matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP8) were assessed. Longitudinal changes were tested for inter-group differences. Results: Thirty-two patients were treated. BOP was more reduced (p = 0.006) in CC than in GC, with means and standard deviations of 46 ± 28% and 17 ± 27%, respectively. PPD was more reduced (p = 0.002) in CC than in GC with 0.65 ± 0.40 mm and 0.18 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. Regarding BOP, the percentages of improved, unchanged and worsened sites accounted for 32%, 61% and 7% in GC and 46%, 53% and 1% in CC, respectively. For probing pocket depth, the according values were 26%, 66% and 8% (GC) versus 57%, 38% and 5% (CC). Conclusions: During supportive therapy, repeated CHX chip application might resolve marginal peri-implant inflammation in terms of bleeding better than CHX gel.

Non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis: 12-month results

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants treated by means of non-surgical debridement with systemic antibiotic therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective case series study evaluating the 12-month clinical and radiographic outcomes of peri-implantitis lesions treated with ultrasonic scaler debridement, a glycine air abrasive, and metronidazole followed by supportive maintenance. Clinical and radiographic variables and success criteria were defined a priori.

RESULTS

Overall, 21 patients were included. One implant failed during the study period (implant survival rate 95.24%). Substantial changes occurred at 12 months in all the clinical and radiographic variables, reaching strong statistical significance in the majority of them. According to the success criteria applied, 40.90% of the peri-implantitis were arrested and resolved, while 59.1% presented with at least one probed site with bleeding on probing (BoP). Moreover, 95.45% exhibited peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) < 5 mm at the end of the study. None of the implants presented with progressive bone loss.

CONCLUSION

Non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis is effective to arrest progressive bone loss, reduce PPD and suppuration, and achieve radiographic bone fill in the majority of cases. Nevertheless, it failed to be completely efficacious in the achievement of successful therapeutic outcomes as BoP remained frequently present.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Non-surgical therapy achieved significant clinical and radiological improvements.

Periodontal regeneration compared with access flap surgery in human intra-bony defects 20-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial: tooth retention, periodontitis recurrence and costs

AIM

Compare the long-term outcomes and costs of three treatment modalities in intra-bony defects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five intra-bony defects in 45 patients had been randomly allocated to receive: modified papilla preservation technique with titanium-reinforced expanded-polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE) membranes (MPPT Tit, N = 15); access flap with expanded-PTFE membranes (Flap-ePTFE, N = 15) and access flap alone (Flap, N = 15). Supportive periodontal care (SPC) was provided monthly for 1 year, then every 3 months for 20 years. Periodontal therapy was delivered to sites showing recurrences.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients complied with SPC. Four subjects were lost to follow-up. Clinical attachment-level differences between 1 and 20 years were -0.1 ± 0.3 mm (p = 0.58) in the MPPT Tit; -0.5 ± 0.1 mm (p = 0.003) in the Flap-ePTFE and -1.7 ± 0.4 mm (p < 0.001) in the Flap. At 20 years, sites treated with Flap showed greater attachment loss compared to MPPT Tit (1.4 ± 0.4 mm; p = 0.008) and to Flap-ePTFE (1.1 ± 0.4 mm; p = 0.03). Flap group lost two treated teeth. Five episodes of recurrences occurred in the MPPT Tit, six in the Flap-ePTFE and fifteen in the Flap group. Residual pocket depth at 1-year was significantly correlated with the number of recurrences (p = 0.002). Sites treated with flap had greater OR for recurrences and higher costs of re-intervention than regenerated sites over a 20-year follow-up period with SPC.

CONCLUSIONS

Regeneration provided better long-term benefits than Flap: no tooth loss, less periodontitis progression and less expense from re-intervention over a 20-year period. These benefits need to be interpreted in the context of higher immediate costs associated with regenerative treatment. These initial observations need to be extended to larger groups and broader clinical settings.