Open flap debridement of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics: A randomized clinical trial

Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis Adjunctive to Surgical Reconstructive Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Retrospective Study

AIMS

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of oral systemic antibiotic prophylaxis administered along with the surgical reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment.

METHODS

A total of 49 patients exhibiting 70 implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis underwent a surgical reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment. Of them, 27 patients (38 implants) received a single preoperative shot of antibiotics (2 g amoxicillin; Pre-op), 12 patients (19 implants) were prescribed with postoperative antibiotics for 3 days (500 mg amoxicillin, 3 x day, Post-op), and the remaining 10 patients (13 implants) did not receive any systemic antibiotics (No-Ab). Mean probing depth values (mean PDs; primary outcome), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque (PI), suppuration (Sup), and deepest PDs values (max PD) were assessed prior to surgery (baseline), after 6 and 12 months. To assess the differences in changes in the clinical parameters, and disease resolution (PD ≤ 5 mm, ≤ 1 BOP site and no Sup) among the groups, logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

After 12 months, the mean PD reduction amounted to -1.74 ± 1.56 mm, -1.91 ± 1.88 mm, and -1.13 ± 1.05 mm in the No-Ab, Pre-op, and Post-op groups, respectively, with no significant difference detected among the groups. The BOP was reduced in 60%, 59.3%, and 83.3% of the patients after 12 months in the No-Ab, Pre-op, and Post-op groups, respectively, with no significant differences among them. The PI, Sup and max PD reductions were comparable among the groups. Disease resolution after 12 months was established in 61.5%, 73.7%, and 89.5% of patients in the No-Ab, Pre-op, and Post-op groups (No-Ab vs. Pre-op: p = 0.10, No-Ab vs. Post-op: p = 0.40, Pre-op vs. Post-op: p = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

Systemic antibiotic prophylaxis did not improve the clinical outcomes of surgical reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment.

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.

Treatment of peri-implantitis with a flapless surgical access combined with implant surface decontamination and adjunctive systemic antibiotics: A retrospective case series study

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of a flapless surgical approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis and to explore the factors influencing its outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present retrospective study evaluated patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with a flapless surgical access, with or without systemic antimicrobials, curettage and, when needed, prostheses modification. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed at baseline and at 3 months and at least 12 months. The primary outcome was disease resolution (≤1 bleeding sites, probing depth [PD] ≤5 mm, no bone loss >0.5 mm). Multilevel regression analyses were used to identify predictors influencing the probability of attaining disease resolution.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen patients with 338 implants were included. Disease resolution was attained in 54.4% of the 338 implants receiving flapless surgical access. At the end of the follow-up period, 111 patients (94.9%) with 295 implants (87.3%) did not require any further treatment, with 81.4% of these implants presenting PD ≤ 5 mm. History of periodontitis and PD at baseline were identified as negative predictors, while compliance with supportive peri-implant care, a machined surface and the adjunctive use of systemic azithromycin or metronidazole were identified as positive predictive factors for disease resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

A flapless surgical approach led to disease resolution in 54.4% of the implants with peri-implantitis. Several risk/protective predictors for disease resolution were identified.

Systemic antibiotics in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIM

To study the clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty-four patients (113 implants) with peri-implantitis were randomized into three groups (A, amoxicillin and metronidazole; B, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole; or C, placebo). Treatment included resective surgery and implant surface decontamination with adjunctive antibiotics or placebo. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Secondary outcomes were treatment success (defined as PPD ≤ 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP] ≤ 1site, absence of suppuration on probing [SOP] and absence of progressive bone loss of >0.5 mm), changes in BOP/SOP, mucosal recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), bacterial levels and adverse events. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 12 months. The impact of potential prognostic indicators on treatment success was evaluated using multilevel logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients (104 implants) completed the study. All groups showed clinical and radiological improvements over time. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups for MBL stability (A = 97%, B = 89%, C = 76%), treatment success (A = 68%, B = 66%, C = 28%) and bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia, favouring antibiotics compared to placebo. Multiple regression identified antibiotic use as potential prognostic indicator for treatment success. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most reported adverse events in the antibiotic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive systemic antibiotics resulted in additional improvements in MBL stability. However, the potential clinical benefits of antibiotics need to be carefully balanced against the risk of adverse events and possible antibiotic resistance.

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with network meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Extensive research has been carried out on the various aspects of diagnosing and treating peri-implantitis. However, clinical guidelines for the management of peri-implantitis based on high quality evidence are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to analyze the current evidence on nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis and synthesize clinical guidelines based on high quality evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451056). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The interventions were ranked according to their efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) system. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The GRADE approach determined a moderate to high level of certainty of evidence. Among the nonsurgical interventions, mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth at 3 months and beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, and clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive topical antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics and photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months. Among surgical interventions, open flap debridement with implant surface decontamination and open flap debridement with decontamination and adjunctive photodynamic therapy were significant in improving probing depth at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics or photodynamic therapy results in improved clinical outcomes.

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

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

Novel Flowchart Guiding the Non-Surgical and Surgical Management of Peri-Implant Complications: A Narrative Review

Peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, are induced by dysbiotic microbiota resulting in the inflammatory destruction of peri-implant tissue. Nonetheless, there has yet to be an established protocol for the treatment of these diseases in a predictable manner, although many clinicians and researchers have proposed various treatment modalities for their management. With the increase in the number of reports evaluating the efficacy of various treatment modalities and new materials, the use of multiple decontamination methods to clean infected implant surfaces is recommended; moreover, the use of hard tissue laser and/or air abrasion techniques may prove advantageous in the future. Limited evidence supports additional effects on clinical improvement in antimicrobial administration for treating peri-implantitis. Implantoplasty may be justified for decontaminating the implant surfaces in the supracrestal area. Surgical treatment is employed for advanced peri-implantitis, and appropriate surgical methods, such as resection therapy or combination therapy, should be selected based on bone defect configuration. This review presents recent clinical advances in debridement methods for contaminated implant surfaces and regenerative materials for treating peri-implant bone defects. It also proposes a new flowchart to guide the treatment decisions for peri-implant disease.

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

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

Unraveling the effectiveness of antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Antibiotics are the most effective adjuncts in the treatment of periodontitis. However, the benefits of these agents in treating peri-implantitis are still debatable and demand further analysis.

PURPOSE

The aim of this review was to critically appraise the literature on the use of antibiotics to treat peri-implantitis, with the ultimate goal of supporting evidence-based clinical recommendations, defining gaps in knowledge and guiding future studies on this topic.

METHODS

A systematized literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on patients with peri-implantitis treated by mechanical debridement-only or with adjunctive use of local or systemic antibiotics. Clinical and microbiological data were extracted from the RCTs included. The findings were critically reviewed, interpreted, and discussed. An overview of antibiotic-loaded dental implant materials in peri-implantitis treatment was also provided.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs testing local/systemic antibiotics were included. Although not always statistically significant, all antibiotic-treated groups had greater reductions in mean PD than those treated by mechanical debridement-only. The only clinically relevant antibiotic protocol supported by one RCT with low risk of bias and long-lasting benefits was systemic metronidazole (MTZ). Studies using ultrasonic debridement reported better outcomes. No RCTs to date have tested MTZ-only or with amoxicillin (AMX) as adjuncts to open-flap implant debridement. In vitro/animal studies suggested that biomaterials with antimicrobial properties are promising to treat peri-implantitis.

CONCLUSION

There are insufficient data to support a particular evidence-based antibiotic protocol to treat peri-implantitis using surgical or nonsurgical therapy, but some conclusions may be drawn. Systemic MTZ adjunct to ultrasonic debridement is an effective protocol to improve the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment. Future studies should assess the clinical and microbiological effects of MTZ and MTZ + AMX as adjuncts to optimal nonsurgical implant decontamination protocols or open-flap debridement. In addition, new locally delivered drugs and antibiotic-loaded surfaces should be assessed by RCTs.

Defining in vitro topical antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of epoxy-tigliane structures against oral pathogens

Background

Peri-implantitis has become an inexorable clinical challenge in implantology. Topical immunomodulatory epoxy-tiglianes (EBCs), derived from the Queensland blushwood tree, which induce remodeling and resolve dermal infection via induction of the inflammasome and biofilm disruption, may offer a novel therapeutic approach.

Design

In vitro antimicrobial activity of EBC structures (EBC-46, EBC-1013 and EBC-147) against Streptococcus mutans, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis in minimum inhibitory concentration, growth curve and permeabilization assays were determined. Antibiofilm activity was assessed using minimum biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) experiments. Biofilm formation and disruption assays were analyzed using confocal laser scanning microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and direct plate counting.

Results

The observed antimicrobial efficacy of the tested compounds (EBC-1013 > EBC-46 > EBC-147) was directly related to significant membrane permeabilization and growth inhibition (p < 0.05) against planktonic S. mutans and P. gingivalis. Antibiofilm activity was evident in MBEC assays, with S. mutans biofilm formation assays revealing significantly lower biomass volume and increased DEAD:LIVE cell ratio observed for EBC-1013 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, biofilm disruption assays on titanium discs induced significant biofilm disruption in S. mutans and P. gingivalis (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

EBC-1013 is a safe, semi-synthetic, compound, demonstrating clear antimicrobial biofilm disruption potential in peri-implantitis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Systemic and Local Antibiotic Therapy in the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

(1) Background: Given the existing controversy regarding the use of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to ascertain how beneficial the role of systemic and local antibiotics is in peri-implant surgical therapy, considering the harmful effects that they represent and the abuse of antibiotics in terms of global health. (2) Methods: To determine the therapeutic efficacy of the administration of antibiotics in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP), electronic and manual bibliographic searches were carried out in the Embase and PubMed databases, collecting data that related to before and after treatment. (3) Results: The adjunctive use of local antibiotics provides significant improvements in PPD (MD = 1.29; 95% CI: 0.56 to 2.02; p ≤ 0.0006; I² = 0%) when compared with surgical treatment alone. No significant differences were found in the other subgroup; that is, the use of systemic antibiotics did not significantly improve PPD changes in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (MD = 0.40; 95% CI: -0.15 to 0.95; p = 0.15; I² = 0). (4) Conclusions: The use of local antibiotics in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis seems to offer treatment improvements in terms of PPD and BoP, unlike that observed with the use of systemic antibiotics. However, these results should be taken with caution as they also depend on the type of surgical technique used, whether regenerative or resective. More research is needed on this topic to understand the role of local and systemic antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy of surgical methods for peri-implantitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is the most difficult biological complication associated with dental implants, often requiring surgical treatments in advanced stages. This study compares the effectiveness of different surgical methods for peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different surgical treatments for peri-implantitis were extracted from EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and PubMed systematically. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to analyze the effect of surgical treatments on probing depth (PD), radiographic bone fill (RBF), mucosal recession (MR), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment level (CAL). In addition, risk of bias, quality of evidence, and statistical heterogeneity of the selected studies were evaluated. A total of 13 articles were included in this study, involving open flap debridement (OFD), resective therapy (RT), and augmentative therapy (AT) with and without adjunctive treatments (laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, local antibiotics, phosphoric acid, and ozone therapy).

RESULTS

AT improved RBF and CAL more than OFD, but does not outperform OFD in reducing peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation. AT, OFD and RT did not significantly alter the levels of MR. Addition of ozone therapy improved the effect of AT, but addition of photodynamic therapy did not affect PD reduction and CAL gain significantly. Similarly, adjuvant treatment with phosphoric acid during RT did not significantly change the outcome of BOP.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this systematic review and NMA, AT was superior to OFD in improving peri-implantitis outcomes. While adjunct use of ozone therapy may further improve the efficacy of AT, the limited evidence supporting this combination therapy argues for cautionary interpretation of these results.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Outcomes for Adjunctive Physical, Chemical, and Biological Treatment of Dental Implants With Peri-Implantitis

The present systematic review evaluated the efficacy of adjunctive therapies in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Studies comparing the outcome of conventional surgical- or nonsurgical mechanical debridement with the addition of an adjunctive therapeutic modality were identified through an electronic and hand search of available literature. Following data extraction, meta-analyses were performed on the primary outcome measures. The effects of the adjunctive therapies on bleeding on probing (13 studies), probing pocket depth (9 studies), and radiographic bone level changes (7 studies) were analyzed to evaluate potential clinical benefit. Heterogeneity was expressed as the I2 index. Fixed and random effect models were demonstrated. The potential benefit of adjunctive therapies over control procedures was evaluated in 18 studies, representing a total of 773 implants. Quality assessment of the studies found only 3 studies to be at a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis among the different additional modalities revealed chemical therapy demonstrating significant effects in probing pocket depth reduction (0.58 mm; 0.44-0.72) and radiographic bone level gain (0.54 mm; 0.16-0.92). No significant improvements in bleeding on probing reduction were found using any adjunctive therapy. Available evidence on the benefits of adjunctive therapy to nonsurgical or surgical mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implantitis is limited by low numbers of standardized, controlled studies for individual therapies, heterogeneity between studies, and a variety of outcome measures. The lack of effect of any adjunctive therapy in reducing bleeding on probing questions the overall effectiveness over conventional treatment. The long-term clinical benefit potential of these therapies is not demonstrated.

Effect of laser-assisted reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis on protein biomarkers and bacterial load

OBJECTIVES

This randomized clinical trial assessed changes in protein biomarker levels and bacterial profiles after surgical reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis and investigated whether the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser impacts protein biomarker and microbial outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four patients received surgical reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis with guided bone regeneration following mechanical debridement with (test) or without (control) the adjunctive irradiation of Er:YAG laser. Bacterial and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected over 6 months and analyzed with bacterial qPCR and luminex multiplex assays.

RESULTS

Surgical reconstructive treatment significantly affected the concentration of PICF protein biomarkers, including a 50% reduction in IL-1β between 2 and 4 weeks (p < .0001). Both MMP-9 (p < .001) and VEGF (p < .05) levels steadily decreased after treatment. In the laser group, the peak increase in IL-1β was attenuated at 2 weeks, followed by significant reduction in MMP-9 (p < .01) and VEGF (p < .05) across all follow-up appointments compared with the control nonlaser group. The total bacterial load was reduced 2 weeks after treatment, especially in the laser group, but recolonized to presurgical levels after 4 weeks in both groups (p < .01). The composition of selective pathogens varied significantly over the follow-up, but recolonization patterns did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis significantly altered PICF protein biomarker and microbial levels during the healing process. The adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser significantly modulated the inflammatory response through reduced levels of MMP-9 and VEGF during the postsurgical period. The bacterial load was reduced immediately after therapy, but recolonization was observed by 4 weeks in both groups.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

In-Vitro Biofilm Removal Efficacy Using Water Jet in Combination with Cold Plasma Technology on Dental Titanium Implants

Peri-implantitis-associated inflammation can lead to bone loss and implant failure. Current decontamination measures are ineffective due to the implants' complex geometry and rough surfaces providing niches for microbial biofilms. A modified water jet system (WaterJet) was combined with cold plasma technology (CAP) to achieve superior antimicrobial efficacy compared to cotton gauze treatment. Seven-day-old multi-species-contaminated titanium discs and implants were investigated as model systems. The efficacy of decontamination on implants was determined by rolling the implants over agar and determining colony-forming units supported by scanning electron microscopy image quantification of implant surface features. The inflammatory consequences of mono and combination treatments were investigated with peripheral blood mononuclear cell surface marker expression and chemokine and cytokine release profiles on titanium discs. In addition, titanium discs were assayed using fluorescence microscopy. Cotton gauze was inferior to WaterJet treatment according to all types of analysis. In combination with the antimicrobial effect of CAP, decontamination was improved accordingly. Mono and CAP-combined treatment on titanium surfaces alone did not unleash inflammation. Simultaneously, chemokine and cytokine release was dramatically reduced in samples that had benefited from additional antimicrobial effects through CAP. The combined treatment with WaterJet and CAP potently removed biofilm and disinfected rough titanium implant surfaces. At the same time, non-favorable rendering of the surface structure or its pro-inflammatory potential through CAP was not observed.

Effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A multi-centre randomized clinical trial

AIM

The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial with 12 months of follow-up aimed at studying the added effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-two patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited. After a behavioural intervention phase including oral hygiene instructions, patients were randomized to either receiving supra- and sub-marginal instrumentation on their affected implants (control group: 21 patients and 29 implants) or only supra-marginal instrumentation (test group: 21 patients and 24 implants), before undergoing surgery. Changes in the deepest probing pocket depth (PPD) with respect to baseline and a composite outcome of treatment success (no implant loss, no bone loss &gt; 0.5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration on probing [BoP/SoP], and PPD ≤ 5 mm) at the 12-month examination were regarded as the primary outcomes of the trial.

RESULTS

At the 12-month examination, changes in the deepest PPD with respect to baseline amounted to -2.96 mm in the control group and to -3.11 mm in the test one (MD = -0.16; SE = 0.56; p = .769), while 21.4% of the implants in the control group and 33.3% in the test group presented treatment success (OR = 1.83; SE = 1.15; p = .338). With the exception of a longer non-surgical treatment duration in the control group (differences in  = -14.29 min; SE = 2.91; p &lt; .001), no other secondary (e.g., soft-tissue recession, keratinized mucosa height, and bone level changes, as well as BoP, SoP, profuse bleeding and implant loss rates) or exploratory (i.e., early wound healing, aesthetics, surgical and total treatment duration, surgery difficulty, intra-operative bleeding, and adverse events) outcome demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial did not demonstrate an added effect of performing sub-marginal instrumentation 6 weeks before the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Larger clinical trials are however needed to confirm the present findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03620331).

Surface decontamination protocols for surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to others (C) in terms of clinical and radiographic parameters (O)?"

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more decontamination protocols as part of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. Whenever possible, results were summarized through random effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-two manuscripts reporting on 16 RCTs were included, testing mechanical, chemical and physical decontamination protocols. All of them resulted in an improvement in clinical parameters; however, the superiority of specific protocols over others is mainly based on single RCTs. The use of titanium brushes and implantoplasty showed favorable results as single decontamination methods. Meta-analyses indicated a lack of added effect of Er:Yag laser on probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (n = 2, WMD = -0.24 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.10; 0.63], p = .59); while systemic antimicrobials (amoxicillin or azithromycin) showed an added effect on treatment success ([PPD ≤5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration, no progressive bone loss]; n = 2, RR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.17;2.91], p = .008), but not in terms of PPD reduction (n = 2, WMD = 0.93 mm, 95% CI [-0.69; 2.55], p = .26), even if with substantial heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

No single decontamination method demonstrated clear evidence of superiority compared to the others. Systemic antibiotics, but not Er:Yag laser, may provide short-term clinical benefits in terms of treatment success (CRD42020182303).

Clinical, Microbiological, and Biochemical Impact of the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis-A Prospective Case Series

Background: The aim of this study, a prospective case series, was to evaluate the clinical, microbiological, and biochemical impact of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: Thirty subjects with diagnosis of peri-implantitis were treated following a surgical protocol including access flaps, surface decontamination with ultrasonics and glycine powder air-polishing, and systemic antibiotics. Disease resolution was defined by the composite outcome including presence of probing depths (PD) ≤5 mm, absence of bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration, and no additional radiographic bone loss (>1 mm). Regression analysis was used to evaluate the patient-, implant-, and prosthetic-related factors possibly influencing treatment outcomes. Results: Patients were evaluated at 6 months post treatment, demonstrating statistically significant reductions in PD (2.14 ± 1.07 mm) and increase in mucosal recession (1.0 ± 0.77 mm). Plaque, BoP, and suppuration were also reduced by 40.56%, 62.22%, and 7.78%, respectively. Disease resolution was achieved in 56.67% of patients. No significant changes were detected in microbiological parameters except for a significant reduction in proportions of Parvimonas micra. Similarly, the levels of the biomarker interleukin-8 in crevicular fluid were significantly lower at 6 months. Conclusions: The proposed surgical treatment of peri-implantitis demonstrated statistically significant clinical improvements although the impact on microbiological and biochemical parameters was scarce.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Systemic Antibiotic Therapy in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

Research has been conducted into the advantages of the systemic administration of antibiotics. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of systemic antibiotic administration in the treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of bleeding on probing (BoP) and probing pocket depth (PPD). Literature searches were performed across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify randomized controlled trials and observational clinical studies. After peri-implantitis treatment, PPD was reduced by 0.1 mm (p = 0.58; IC 95% [-0.24, 0.47]), indicating a non-significant effect of antibiotic administration on PPD. The BoP odds ratio value was 1.15 (p = 0.5; IC 95% [0.75, 1.75]), indicating that the likelihood of bleeding is almost similar between the test and control groups. Secondary outcomes were found, such as reduced clinical attachment level, lower suppuration and recession, less bone loss, and a reduction in total bacterial counts. In the treatment of peri-implantitis, the systemic antibiotic application reduces neither PPD nor BoP. Therefore, the systemic administration of antibiotics, in the case of peri-implantitis, should be rethought in light of the present results, contributing to address the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance.

Efficiency of biofilm removal by combination of water jet and cold plasma: an in-vitro study

Background

Peri-implantitis therapy is a major problem in implantology. Because of challenging rough implant surface and implant geometry, microorganisms can hide and survive in implant microstructures and impede debridement. We developed a new water jet (WJ) device and a new cold atmospheric pressure plasma (CAP) device to overcome these problems and investigated aspects of efficacy in vitro and safety with the aim to create the prerequisites for a clinical pilot study with these medical devices.

Methods

We compared the efficiency of a single treatment with a WJ or curette and cotton swab (CC) without or with adjunctive use of CAP (WJ + CAP, CC + CAP) to remove biofilm in vitro from rough titanium discs. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by measuring turbidity up to 72 h for bacterial re-growth or spreading of osteoblast-like cells (MG-63) after 5 days with scanning electron microscopy. With respect to application safety, the WJ and CAP instruments were examined according to basic regulations for medical devices.

Results

After 96 h of incubation all WJ and CC treated disks were turbid but 67% of WJ + CAP and 46% CC + CAP treated specimens were still clear. The increase in turbidity after WJ treatment was delayed by about 20 h compared to CC treatment. In combination with CAP the cell coverage significantly increased to 82% (WJ + CAP) or 72% (CC + CAP), compared to single treatment 11% (WJ) or 10% (CC).

Conclusion

The newly developed water jet device effectively removes biofilm from rough titanium surfaces in vitro and, in combination with the new CAP device, biologically acceptable surfaces allow osteoblasts to grow. WJ in combination with CAP leads to cleaner surfaces than the usage of curette and cotton swabs with or without subsequent plasma treatment. Our next step will be a clinical pilot study with these new devices to assess the clinical healing process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-022-02195-1.

Implantoplasty- provoking or reducing inflammation? - a systematic scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate clinical parameters associated with inflammation after adjunctive implantoplasty in conjunction with surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in 2 databases until 29. December 2020 to find publications that report on clinical parameters after surgical peri-implantitis treatment which included adjunctive implantoplasty. Clinical studies on implantoplasty reporting on BoP as outcome were included, but other clinical or radiographic outcomes were also considered.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 18 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The results indicated improvements of BoP and clinical parameters following surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive implantoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Within its limits, the findings of the present scoping review indicated that BoP is reduced following surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive implantoplasty, and that this improvement is in line with surgical peri-implantitis treatment without adjunctive implantoplasty.

Non-submerged reconstructive approach for peri-implantitis osseous defect, with removal of implant crowns: 1-year outcomes of a prospective case series study

BACKGROUND & AIM

The aim of this study was to test a non-submerged reconstructive approach for peri-implantitis osseous defects, by removing the prosthetic components, augmenting of the infraosseous bony compartment, and flap re-adaptation around the replaced healing abutments, without obtaining a primary wound closure.

METHODS

Twenty-nine implants in 24 patients were treated. Implant suprastructures were removed at the time of the intervention, to aid with the debridement process which included curettage, implantoplasty, air-power driven devices, and locally delivered antibiotics. The infraosseous part of peri-implant defects were augmented using a composite bone graft and an absorbable membrane to be secured around the replaced healing abutments without attempting to submerge the implants. After 8 months, direct peri-implant defect measurements were obtained to serve as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included of radiographic bone changes, and probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) changes at 12 months.

RESULTS

At the time of the surgical re-entry (8 months), a statistically significant clinical and radiographic defect fill was observed (average of 2.33 mm, and 1.63 mm, respectively). Approximately 3 months after crown replacement, 12 months from the surgical intervention, a significant PD (1.51 mm) and BOP (65%) reduction were also noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering its limitations, the utilized non-submerged approach (with removal of implant crowns) led to significant improvements in clinical (defect fill, PD, BOP) and radiographic outcomes. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Surgical therapy of peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis is caused by a bacterial challenge; therefore, anti-infective treatment strategies should be employed to manage the disease. As nonsurgical approaches demonstrate limited efficacy in most cases of peri-implantitis, surgical interventions are often required. Treatment outcomes improve following access flap surgery, with or without adjunctive resective and/or augmentation measures. Whereas nonaugmentative therapies (ie, access flap surgery and resective techniques) primarily aim to resolve inflammation and arrest further disease progression, augmentation approaches also seek to regenerate the bony defect and achieve reosseointegration. Currently, limited evidence supports the superiority of augmentative surgical techniques for peri-implantitis treatment over nonaugmentation methods, and human histologic evidence for reosseointegration is sparse. For patients involved in regular postoperative maintenance programs, success of peri-implantitis surgical treatment based on various definitions of success was obtained in over half of the cases after 5-7 years. Despite surgical treatment, cases of further disease progression that required retreatment or led to implant loss were reported.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Purpose

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in the same region where previous implants failed due to peri-implantitis: a retrospective study

Purpose

There is paucity in the studies that assess dental implants replacing failed dental implants due to peri-implantitis. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these implants in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss.

Methods

Patients in this retrospective study were selected if having one or more implants removed due to peri-implantitis and the placement and loading of dental implants in the same region from April 2010 to December 2019. Information was collected about the patient's demographic data, implant dimensions, surgical and prosthetic variables. Changes in peri-implant bone level, cumulative implant survival rate and technical complications were assessed.

Results

Three hundred and eighty one dental implants in 146 patients that were placed in the same position or one-tooth position mesially/distally to the site of explantation were included. The patients' mean age was 63 ± 10 years. Ninety seven patients were females and 49 were males. After a mean follow-up of 34 ± 17 months, two implants failed. The cumulative survival rate was 99%. The marginal bone loss was −0.1 ± 0.6. Immediate or delay replacement of the failed implant did not affect implant survival or marginal bone stability. All the prostheses were screw-retained and presented the following complications: ceramic chipping (3 events), resin tooth fracture (1 event) and prosthetic screw loosening (1 event).

Conclusions

Dental implants replacing failed implants due to peri-implantitis would be an option in the management of peri-implantitis. They showed high survival rate and marginal bone stability.

Efficacy of keratinized mucosal augmentation with a collagen matrix concomitant to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A dual-center randomized clinical trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a xenogeneic collagen matrix to augment the width of keratinized mucosa (KM), concomitantly to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, when compared to the use of an autologous soft tissue graft.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this 12-month parallel-arm randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned, one month after non-surgical therapy, to surgical resective treatment of peri-implantitis consisting on an apically positioned flap (APF) in combination with a KM augmentation procedure, either with an autologous free gingival graft (FGG) or a collagen matrix (CM). Primary outcomes were the increase in the width of KM and probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction at 12 months. As secondary outcomes, peri-implant radiographic and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat population consisted of 49 subjects, assigned to either the APF + FGG (n = 23) or APF + CM (n = 26) group. PPDs were reduced by 1.6 mm (SD 1.0) and 1.7 mm (SD 1.2), respectively, being these differences non statistically significant (p = .782). However, the increase in KM was significantly higher in the APF + FGG compared with APF + CM (2.5 mm [SD 1.6] vs. 1.6 mm [SD 1.2], respectively (p = .033).

CONCLUSION

The tested surgical modalities resulted in similar improvements of the clinical parameters. Both free gingival graft and collagen matrix significantly increased the peri-implant keratinized mucosa, but this KM gain was significantly higher with the free gingival graft. Use of CM, however, was better appreciated by the patients, in terms of pain perception and analgesic consumption, although the surgical time was similar.

The effect of choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid in patients with peri-implantitis: an exploratory randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study

Background

Choline-stabilized orthosilicic acid (CS-OSA) was previously found to stimulate bone collagen formation in osteopenia and to improve biomarkers of cartilage degradation in knee osteoarthritis. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of oral administration of CS-OSA on clinical symptoms of peri-implantitis and the associated bone loss.

Methods

Twenty-one patients with peri-implantitis were randomized in CS-OSA or placebo groups. After initial clinical and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements [probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), mucosal recession (REC), distance from implant shoulder to alveolar crest (IS-AC) and distance from implant shoulder to first bone-to-implant contact (IS-BIC)], flap operations were performed at the peri-implantitis sites. All patients were instructed to use either placebo or CS-OSA capsules twice a day for 1 year. Measurements were repeated 6 and 12 months after randomization.

Results

The data of 18 patients (36 implants) were used in the per protocol analysis. PPD and BOP improved significantly (p < 0.05) compared to baseline for both groups after 6 and 12 months. However, REC significantly increased in the placebo group but not in the CS-OSA group. The change in REC over 6 and 12 months was significantly different between groups (p < 0.01). IS-BIC and IS-AC measurements remained stable in the CS-OSA group whereas in the placebo group, both parameters increased significantly after 6 and 12 months. The change in IS-BIC over 12 months was significantly different between groups (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of this preliminary study suggest that CS-OSA may stabilize and even prevent further bone loss after surgical peri-implantitis treatment and support mucosal tissue healing.

Trial registration

The trial was retrospectively registered at ISRCTN registry, registration number: ISRCTN14348802, registration date: 24/06/2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01817-4.

Surgical reconstructive treatment for infraosseous peri-implantitis defects with a submerged healing approach: A prospective controlled study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the reconstructive potential of a submerged healing approach for the treatment of infraosseous peri-implantitis defects.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of peri-implantitis were recruited. Implant suprastructures were removed before the surgical treatment, which included implant surface and defect detoxification using implantoplasty, air-power driven devices, and locally delivered antibiotics. The augmentation procedure included a composite bone graft and a non-resorbable membrane followed by primary wound coverage and a submerged healing of 8 months, at which point membranes were removed, and peri-implant defect measurements were obtained as the primary outcome. Secondary endpoints included assessment of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and probing depth (PD) reductions.

RESULTS

Thirty implants in 22 patients were treated. A significant clinical bone gain of 3.22 ± 0.41 mm was observed at 8 months. Radiographic analysis also showed an average gain of 3.47 ± 0.41 mm. Three months after installment of new crowns, final PD measures showed a significant reduction compared to initial examinations and a significant reduction in bleeding on probing compared to examinations at the pre-surgical visit.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstruction of infraosseous peri-implantitis defects is feasible with thorough detoxification of implant sites, and a submerged regenerative healing approach.

Systemic antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A single-blind RCT

Aim

The aim of this single‐blind RCT was to evaluate the adjunctive clinical and microbiological effect of systemic amoxicillin (AMX) plus metronidazole (MTZ) to non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis.

Material and methods

Patients (N = 62) with peri‐implantitis were randomly assigned to receive full‐mouth mechanical debridement and decontamination and use of chlorhexidine (control group) or combined with antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ (test group). Primary outcome was change in bleeding score from baseline (T₀) to 3‐month follow‐up (T₃). Secondary parameters were plaque, suppuration, PPD, CAL, bone level, microbiology, adverse events and need for additional surgery. Data were analysed with linear multiple regression analysis.

Results

57 patients with 122 implants completed 3‐month follow‐up. Both groups showed major clinical improvements at T₃ in both peri‐implant and periodontal parameters. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for any of the primary or secondary parameters.

Conclusions

Systemic antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ does not improve clinical and microbiological outcomes of non‐surgical peri‐implantitis treatment and should not be routinely recommended. Although complete disease resolution may be difficult to achieve, meticulously performed full‐mouth non‐surgical treatment, achieving a high level of daily oral hygiene and healthy periodontal tissues, can significantly improve the starting position of the subsequent (surgical) peri‐implantitis treatment phase.

A Mini Review on Non-augmentative Surgical Therapy of Peri-Implantitis—What Is Known and What Are the Future Challenges?

Non-augmentative surgical therapy of peri-implantitis is indicated for cases with primarily horizontal bone loss or wide defects with limited potential for bone regeneration and/or re-osseointegration. This treatment approach includes a variety of different techniques (e.g., open flap debridement, resection of peri-implant mucosa, apically positioned flaps, bone re-contouring, implantoplasty, etc.) and various relevant aspects should be considered during treatment planning. The present mini review provides an overview on what is known for the following components of non-augmentative surgical treatment of peri-implantitis and on potential future research challenges: (1) decontamination of the implant surface, (2) need of implantoplasty, (3) prescription of antibiotics, and (4) extent of resective measures.

Peri-Implant Diseases: Diagnosis, Clinical, Histological, Microbiological Characteristics and Treatment Strategies. A Narrative Review

Since the use of dental implants is continuously increasing, it is imperative for dental practitioners to understand the nature and treatment of peri-implant diseases. The purpose of this manuscript is to comprehensively review peri-implant diseases, their characteristics, as well as their non-surgical and surgical treatment. To that end, the current literature was searched and a narrative review was conducted. It is essential that the case definitions described in the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions are used to diagnose and classify peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. While recent epidemiologic studies on peri-implant diseases exist, there is great heterogeneity in the definition of these conditions. Several risk factors and indicators are reported in the literature, with smoking and diabetes being the most universally accepted. In peri-implant mucositis, non-surgical treatment seems to be sufficient. However, for the treatment of peri-implantitis, a surgical approach, which includes open-flap debridement, apically positioned flap and guided bone regeneration, is considered more appropriate. A great variety of adjuncts to mechanical treatment have been reported with controversial results. Finally, studies comparing results from different peri-implantitis treatments are warranted in randomized controlled clinical trials in order to provide stronger evidence-based approaches.

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Despite the success rates of dental implants, peri-implantitis presents as the most common complication in implant dentistry. This review discusses various factors associated with peri-implantitis and various available treatments, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Relevant articles on peri-implantitis published in English were reviewed from August 2010 to April 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. The identified risk indicators of peri-implant diseases are plaque, smoking, history of periodontitis, surface roughness, residual cement, emergence angle >30 degrees, radiation therapy, keratinized tissue width, and function time of the implant, sex, and diabetes. Peri-implantitis treatments can be divided into nonsurgical (mechanical, antiseptic, and antibiotics), surface decontamination (chemical and laser), and surgical (air powder abrasive, resective, and regenerative). However, mechanical debridement alone may fail to eliminate the causative bacteria, and this treatment should be combined with other treatments (antiseptics and surgical treatment). Surface decontamination using chemical agents may be used as an adjuvant treatment; however, the definitive clinical benefit is yet not proven. Laser treatment may result in a short-term decrease in periodontal pocket depth, while air powder abrasive is effective in cleaning a previously contaminated implant surface. Surgical elimination of a pocket, bone recontouring and plaque control are also effective for treating peri-implantitis. The current evidence indicates that regenerative approaches to treat peri-implant defects are unpredictable.

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of growth factors (GF) on clinical outcomes after treatment (surgical/non-surgical) of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: Is there any difference for the use of GF for treatment of peri-implant diseases versus comparative GF treatment or without GF? Electronic database and manual searches were independently conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications were selected based on eligibility criteria and then assessed for risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction along with changes in vertical defect depth (VDD). Changes in clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and plaque index, among others, were studied as secondary outcomes. Based on primary outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of five RCTs were included. GF enhance the reduction of PD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.75, - 0.79; p = < 0.0001) and BOP (SMD = - 1.23; 95% CI - 1.70, - 0.76; p = < 0.0001) in the management of peri-implant mucositis. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, the use of GF yielded to significantly greater improvement in VDD (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI 0.22, 1.14; p = 0.004); however, there were no significant differences in terms of PD (SMD = 0.08; 95% CI - 1.08, 1.26; p = 0.887) and BOP (SMD = 0.211; 95% CI - 0.20, 0.63; p = 0.317). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear.

CONCLUSION

The results of the present systematic review suggest that the addition of GF might enhance the outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. However, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of GF managing peri-implantitis.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Within the limitations of the current systematic review and based on the meta-analyses, (1) the addition of GF for the treatment peri-implant mucositis might be associated with better outcomes in terms of PD and BOP, and (2) an additional benefit of GF for the treatment peri-implantitis could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.

Regrowth of Microcosm Biofilms on Titanium Surfaces After Various Antimicrobial Treatments

Objectives: Our aim of this work was to investigate the regrowth of implant-related biofilms after various antimicrobial treatments in vitro. Methods: Saliva-derived microcosm biofilms were grown on titanium discs in an active attachment model. Treatments including hydrogen peroxide (HP), citric acid (CA), chlorhexidine (CHX), and distilled water (control), at different concentrations, were applied to 2-day biofilms for 1 or 5 min. The viability, lactic acid production, and composition of the biofilms were followed for 3 days. The biofilm composition was analyzed by 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing. Results: The short treatments of CA, CHX, and HP resulted in a 2-3 log reduction in biofilm viability and lactic acid production immediately. However, both parameters returned to the pre-treatment level within 2 days due to biofilm regrowth. The alpha diversity of the regrown biofilms in antimicrobial-treated groups tended to decrease, whereas the diversity of those in water-treated group increased. The composition of the regrown biofilms altered compared to those before treatments. Streptococcus and Enterobacteriaceae were enriched in the regrown biofilms. Conclusions: Although the antimicrobial treatments were efficient, the multi-species biofilms were indeed able to regrow within 2 days. The regrown biofilms display an altered microbial diversity and composition, which in the oral cavity may lead to an aggressive infection.

Microbiological and clinical effects of adjunctive systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: 1 year follow-up

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of adjunct systemic antibiotic treatment with metronidazole (MTZ) and amoxicillin (AMX) in patients receiving non-surgical subgingival debridement (NSD) for peri-implantitis. Forty subjects presenting with at least one implant with severe peri-implantitis were randomized into an experimental group [treated with NSD plus MTZ (400 mg) and AMX (500 mg) three times a day for 14 days] and a control group treated with NSD plus placebo. Clinical parameters and submucosal biofilm profiles were evaluated up to 1 year post-treatment. Overall, both treatments improved clinical parameters over time. At 1 year, mean probing depth (PD), mean clinical attachment (CA) level and proportions of red complex pathogens did not differ significantly between the two groups. In addition, mean PD and CA changes to 1-year posttreatment did not differ significantly between the two groups between baseline and 1-year post-treatment. These results suggest that the addition of MTZ and AMX to the treatment protocol of patients undergoing NSD for with severe peri-implantitis does not improve the clinical and microbiological outcomes of NSD. The fact that half of the implants in both groups did not achieve clinical success (PD < 5 mm, no BoP, no bone loss) suggest that neither of the tested protocols were effective for treating severe peri-implantitis.

Clinical Evaluation of Three Surgical Modalities in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of three mechanical procedures for surgically treating peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a randomized, prospective, parallel-group study, 47 patients with peri-implantitis were treated with (a) plastic curettes (n = 15 patients, 25 implants), (b) an air-abrasive device (Perio-Flow^®, n = 16 patients,22 implants), or (c) a titanium brush (Ti-Brush^®, n = 16 patients, 23 implants). Patients were assessed for the following measures at three timepoints (baseline, and three and six months after surgery): plaque index, bleeding on probing, gingival index, probing pocket depth (PPD), relative attachment level, and bone loss. Treatment outcome was considered successful when the implant was still present with PPD ≤ 5 mm, no bleeding on probing, and no further mean bone loss ≥ 0.5 mm.

RESULTS

A greater reduction of gingival index and PPD was observed in the titanium brush group than in the other groups at six months (P < 0.001). Relative attachment level decreased from baseline in each group at three months but was more marked in the titanium brush group (P < 0.001). At six months, there was less bone loss in the titanium brush group than in the plastic curette group (P < 0.001; linear mixed model and Kruskal-Wallis). A successful outcome was observed in 22% of implants in the plastic curette group, 27% in the Perio-Flow^® group, and 33% in the Ti-Brush^® group.

CONCLUSIONS

The titanium brush and glycine air-polishing device were more effective than the other methods, but treatment success remained low. Combining mechanical procedures with antimicrobials and/or antibiotics might be a more effective strategy and warrants careful investigation.