The efficacy of reconstructive therapy in the surgical management of peri-implantitis: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

AIM

To assess whether guided bone regeneration (GBR) treatment of peri-implantitis-related bony defects could improve healing compared to open flap debridement (OFD) at 36 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received OFD (control group [CG]) and 34 GBR treatment (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 36 months.

RESULTS

Fifty individuals attended a supportive peri-implant therapy program and completed the 36-month follow-up. GBR treatment resulted in an RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm following OFD (p = .18). No difference was found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC or PROs between the groups. Successful treatment (no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% in TG and 20% in CG (p = .053). Treatment results obtained at 12 months were generally maintained up to 36 months. No significant changes were noticed between 12 and 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

At 36 months, treatment results obtained at 1 year were sustained following both GBR and OFD in patients attending supportive peri-implant therapy. GBR resulted in more RDF and higher composite treatment success rate than OFD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier [NCT02375750]).

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.

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.

Defect angle as prognostic indicator in the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the influence of the characteristics of bone defects caused by peri-implantitis on the clinical resolution and radiographic bone gain following reconstructive surgery.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Periapical x-rays of bone defects, caused by peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony component, were analyzed at baseline and 12-month follow-up after reconstructive surgery. Therapy consisted of anti-infective therapy along with a mixture of allografts with or without a collagen barrier membrane. The association of defect configuration, defect angle (DA), defect width (DW), and baseline marginal bone level (MBL) with clinical resolution (based on a prior defined composite criteria) and radiographic bone gain was correlated by means of generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Overall, 33 patients with a total of 48 implants exhibiting peri-implantitis were included. None of the evaluated variables yielded statistical significance with disease resolution. Defect configuration demonstrated statistical significance when compared to class 1B and 3B, favoring radiographic bone gain for the former (p = 0.005). DW and MBL did not demonstrate statistical significance with radiographic bone gain. On the contrary, DA exhibited strong statistical significance with bone gain (p < 0.001) in the simple and multiple logistic regression analyses. Mean DA reported in this study was 40°, and this resulted in 1.85 mm radiographic bone gain. To achieve ≥1 mm of bone gain, DA must be <57°, while to attain ≥2 mm of bone gain, DA must be <30°.

CONCLUSION

Baseline DA of peri-implantitis intrabony components predicts radiographic bone gain in reconstructive therapy (NCT05282667-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).

The effect of reconstructive techniques as treatment modality for peri-implant osseous defects - a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to compare conventional peri-implant flap surgery and reconstructive surgical techniques regarding evidence of remission from peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searches were made among randomized controlled trials evaluating clinical aspects and the changes in marginal bone level before and after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with and without bone substitute.

RESULTS

Nine published articles and 442 patients were eligible for inclusion in the study. Reconstructive techniques exhibited a greater extent of defect fill than conventional surgical techniques alone. No significant differences could be found for clinical measures of peri-implant disease (bleeding on probing and reduction of probing depth) from baseline to the 12-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

With regards to the clinical measures of disease, our review shows that there are no differences between open flap debridement and regenerative surgery. From an esthetic standpoint, it may however be that regenerative measures may lead to improvement but further publications with this focus will be necessary to verify this.

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty participants, with peri-implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change.

RESULTS

All 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12-month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro-intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Similar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups. Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017).

Bone tissue regeneration in peri-implantitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Objectives

The goal of this systematic review was to analyze, in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), regenerative techniques used to treat peri-implantitis (PI).

Methods

Three databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and On-Line Knowledge Library) were accessed, applying the PICO strategy (Population [P], Intervention [I], Comparison [C], and Outcomes [O]), with the following focused questions: (i) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), is the regenerative surgical treatment (I) clinically effective and predictable compared to non-regenerative (C) to treat PI (O)?"; and (ii) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), the regenerative approach (I), compared to non-regenerative (C), significantly increase the prognosis and implant survival rate in the mid- and long-term (O)?" The inclusion criteria were RCTs published in English between 2012 and 2022, with at least a one-year follow-up, which applied regenerative techniques to treat peri-implantitis. Cochrane's collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias was used.

Main results

Nine articles were included with 404 patients (225 females and 179 males; mean age of 60.44 years). One study evaluated patients after 48 months and another after 88 months. The techniques and devices used were: (i) implantoplasty with Er:YAG laser, (ii) blood concentrate (growth factors), and (iii) EMD, with no statistically significant outcome. Two studies considered the use of titanium granules with a significant increase in radiographic bone identification, whereas regenerative techniques with bone graft (autogenous, alloplastic, and xenograft) were the majority chosen, associated or not, with a collagen membrane. Xenograft had better results radiographically when compared to the autogenous bone graft and presented better results for bone level. There was an overall decrease in bleeding on probing, independent of the control or test group, and a reduction in pocket depth in the groups analyzed. Titanium granules, EMD, Er:YAG laser, and CGF had non-significant results; better results were observed when using bone grafts. The RoB showed a low risk in four studies (44.44%), three with moderate (33.33%), and two with high risk (22.23%).

Conclusion

Surgical regenerative treatment was a predictable option in the management of PI and in improving the clinical parameters of peri-implant tissues in the short term, mainly when using porous titanium granules, alloplastic bone grafts, and xenografts.

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.

Survival analysis of implants after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis based on bone loss severity and surgical technique: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Few trials have compared the results of surgical treatment for peri-implantitis based on severity of peri-implantitis and surgical method. This study investigated the survival rate of implants based on type of surgical method used and initial severity of peri-implantitis. Classification of severity was determined based on bone loss rate relative to fixture length.

METHODS

Medical records of patients who underwent peri-implantitis surgery from July 2003 to April 2021 were identified. Classification of peri-implantitis was divided into 3 groups (stage 1: bone loss < 25% (of fixture length), stage 2: 25% < bone loss < 50%, stage 3: bone loss > 50%) and performance of resective or regenerative surgery was investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox hazards proportional models were used to analyze the cumulative survival rate of implants. Median survival time, predicted mean survival time, hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Based on Kaplan-Meier analysis, 89 patients and 227 implants were included, and total median postoperative survival duration was 8.96 years. Cumulative survival rates for stage 1, 2, and 3 were 70.7%, 48.9%, and 21.3%, respectively. The mean survival time for implants in stage 1, 2, and 3 was 9.95 years, 7.96 years, and 5.67 years, respectively, with statistically significant difference (log-rank p-value < 0.001). HRs for stage 2 and stage 3 were 2.25 and 4.59, respectively, with stage 1 as reference. Significant difference was not found in survival time between resective and regenerative surgery groups in any peri-implantitis stage.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial bone loss rate relative to the fixture length significantly correlated with the outcome after peri-implantitis surgery, demonstrating a notable difference in the long-term survival rate. Difference was not found between resective surgery and regenerative surgery in implant survival time. Bone loss rate could be utilized as a reliable diagnostic tool for evaluating prognosis after surgical treatment, regardless of surgical method used.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Retrospectively registered. (KCT0008225).

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.

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri-implantitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of bone reconstructive procedures for the reduction of probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and suppuration in peri-implantitis-related bone defects at ≥12-month follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared bone reconstructive therapies to access flap surgery (AFS) (Focused Question-FQ 1), and RCTs, CCTs, and prospective case series that assessed the efficacy of reconstructive therapies (FQ 2). Meta-analysis was performed for FQ1 when more than three studies were identified, while for FQ2 a network was drawn based on RCTs with common treatment arms.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were identified for FQ1 while five RCTs and six prospective case series for FQ2. There was no significant difference in PPD change between AFS and reconstructive surgery (-0.387; p = .325) at 12 months. Furthermore, no clear differences in terms of PPD and BOP changes resulted from the different reconstructive therapies included in the network. Only a small percentage of treated cases with any modality achieved peri-implantitis resolution, as defined by different composite outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive surgery does not offer significant improvements in peri-implant clinical parameters as compared to AFS at 12 months. It was not possible to establish a hierarchy of efficacy among the different biomaterials employed for reconstructive surgery.

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis constitutes one of the most frequent late dental implant complications. The disease is initiated by bacterial infection; therefore, anti-infective peri-implantitis treatment strategies are required to arrest the progressive marginal bone loss and maintain the affected implant in function. Although nonsurgical treatment strategies appear to be of limited predictability, treatment outcomes have been frequently improved following surgical interventions.

PURPOSE

The present narrative review describes various surgical peri-implantitis treatment modalities, with respect to their indications, performance, and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present narrative review considered the most relevant studies in the field published in the English language.

RESULTS

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment approaches can be categorized as nonreconstrucive therapy, reconstructive therapy, and combined therapy (ie, reconstructive and resective therapy). In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and achieve reosseointegration.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the disease, the regenerative potential of the defetc and esthetic demands of the patient are the factors determining the surgical peri-implantitis treatment modality.

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).

Reconstructive treatment of peri-implant defects-Results after three and five years

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis intraosseous defects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Peri-implant intraosseous defects were augmented using either an autogenous bone graft (AB) or a bovine-derived xenograft (BDX) in combination with a collagen membrane. Maintenance was provided every third month.

RESULTS

In the AB group, 16 patients with 25 implants remained at year five. In the BDX group, 23 patients with 38 implants remained. Between baseline and year 5, bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) scores were reduced in both groups (p < .001). In the AB and BDX groups, mean PPD between baseline and year five was reduced by 1.7 and 2.8 mm, respectively. The difference between groups was significant (p < .001). In the AB group, the mean bone level change at implant level between baseline and years three and five was-0,2 and -0.7 mm, respectively. In the BDX group, the mean bone level change at implant level between baseline and years three and five was 1.6 and 1.6 mm, respectively. The difference between the groups was significant (p < .001). Successful treatment (no bone loss, no probing pocket depth (PPD) > 5 mm, no suppuration, maximum one implant surface with bleeding on probing (BOP) at year five) was obtained in 9/25 implants (36%) in the AB group and in 29/37 implants (78.3%) in the BDX group.

CONCLUSIONS

Reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implant defects using BDX resulted in more predictable outcomes than using autogenous bone over 5 years.

Reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential benefit of the use of a bone substitute material in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, 138 patients (147 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated surgically, randomized by coin toss to either a control (access flap surgery) or a test group (reconstructive surgery using bone substitute material). Clinical assessments, including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP) as well as soft tissue recession (REC), were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Marginal bone levels (MBL), measured on intra-oral radiographs, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline and 12 months. No blinding to group allocation was performed. The primary outcome at 12 months was a composite measure including (i) implant not lost, (ii) absence of BOP/SOP at all aspects, (iii) PPD ≤5 mm at all aspects and (iv) ≤1 mm recession of mucosal margin on the buccal aspect of the implant. Secondary outcomes included (i) changes of MBL, (ii) changes of PPD, BOP%, and buccal KM, (iii) buccal REC and (iv) patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

During follow-up, four implants (one in the test group, three in the control group) in four patients were removed due to disease progression. At 12 months, a total of 69 implants in the test and 68 implants in the control group were examined. Thus, 16.4% and 13.5% of implants in the test and control group, respectively, met all predefined criteria of the composite outcome. PPD reduction and MBL gain were 3.7 mm and about 1.0 mm in both groups. Reduction in mean BOP% varied between 45% (test) and 50% (control), without significant differences between groups. Buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group (M = 0.7, SD = 0.9 mm) when compared to controls (M = 1.1, SD = 1.5 mm). PROs were favorable in both groups without significant differences. One case of allergic reaction to the antibiotic therapy was recorded. No other adverse events were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical therapy of peri-implantitis effectively improved the clinical and radiographic status at 12 months. While the use of a bone substitute material did not improve reductions of PPD and BOP, buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.

Minimal invasiveness in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis defects

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, clinically characterized by increased peri-implant probing pocket depth and progressive loss of supporting bone. Consequently, to arrest further disease progression and to increase the chance to obtain re-osseointegration, surgical reconstructive procedures have been adopted. In particular, following a paradigm gathered from periodontal therapy, recent protocols have underlined the importance of a minimally invasive approach to optimize the outcomes of therapy while minimizing the risks of postoperative complications. The present review summarizes the level of evidence on the surgical reconstructive protocols focusing on the new approaches aiming to minimize surgical trauma and patients' postoperative discomfort, underlining the pros and cons of each treatment modality.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive graft material: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical effect of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone or in combination with graft material. Literature searches were conducted up to June 20, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical effects of open flap debridement (OFD) alone and OFD with adjunctive graft materials for the treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Probing depth (PD) changes and marginal bone level (MBL) changes were assessed and expressed as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. The search yielded 7419 articles, five of which were analysed quantitatively. The adjunctive use of graft materials in OFD did not provide additional PD improvements (SMD 0.46, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.05; P = 0.13), but did yield additional MBL improvements (SMD 1.04, 95% CI 0.71-1.37; P < 0.01). The degradability of the material, number of implants included per patient, and risk of bias did not have significant effects on the results, but the origin of the material may affect the PD improvements. Based on the available evidence, the adjunctive use of graft materials in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis can significantly improve MBL changes but not PD changes.

Efficacy of concentrated growth factor versus collagen membrane in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

Objectives

To compare the 3-year clinical and radiographic outcomes of two different reconstructive surgical management of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute in combination with either concentrated growth factor (CGF) or collagen membrane (CM).

Material and methods

Fifty-one patients who had at least one implant presenting peri-implantitis with an intrabony defect were filled with a xenogenic bone grafting material and covered either CGF or CM. Clinical and radiographic assessments were carried out at baseline and postoperative years 1 and 3. Three different composite outcomes were defined to evaluate treatment success at a 3-year follow-up. The effects of possible prognostic indicators on treatment success were identified by using multilevel regression analysis.

Results

The changes in probing depth (PD) and radiographic vertical defect depth (VDD) between baseline and year 1 and baseline and year 3 presented significantly greater decreases for the CM group in comparison with the CGF group (p < 0.05). No significant differences between the two treatment modalities were demonstrated regarding treatment success outcomes. History of periodontitis, VDD at baseline, and the number of intrabony defect walls revealed significant impacts on treatment success (p = 0.033; OR = 3.50, p = 0.039; OR = 0.975, and p = 0.024; OR = 7.0 and p = 0.019;OR = 6.0, respectively).

Conclusions

CM in combination with a bone substitute seems to have slightly better outcomes compared to the CGF membranes in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. The history of periodontitis, baseline VDD, and peri-implant bone defect configuration could be possible predictors influencing treatment success.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04769609.

Clinical relevance

For the reconstruction of peri-implant bone defects, using a bone substitute in combination with a collagen membrane may show more favorable outcomes.

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.

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry

Esthetic complications in implant dentistry have become a significant consideration for patients and practitioners. This review presents an appraisal on the current knowledge of the physiological peri-implant soft-tissue dimensions and factors that may compromise peri-implant tissue esthetics. Factors such as papilla fill adjacent to the implant and midfacial mucosal height are critical parameters that determine the esthetic success of implant-supported restorations. Papilla fill adjacent to a single dental implant appears to depend upon the clinical attachment level of the neighboring tooth. A horizontal inter-implant distance of at least 3 mm is necessary to ensure optimal interproximal mucosal embrasure between two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. In cases where implants cannot be placed at least 3 mm apart, a single implant with a cantilever bridge should be considered. Buccolingual implant positioning plays a major role in midfacial mucosal height. Soft-tissue volume grafting following immediate implant placement in the presence of a thin soft-tissue phenotype or simultaneous to surgical peri-implantitis therapy might help to overcome facial mucosa recession.

Composite outcome measure (COM) and pocket closure as clinical endpoints following treatment of infra bony defects with Guided tissue regeneration and Open flap debridement

Background

Clinical outcomes of regenerative periodontal therapy has been traditionally assessed using surrogate markers, primarily clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction. This study tried to assess newer clinical endpoints namely pocket closure and composite outcome measure (COM) apart from CAL gain, PPD reduction and gingival recession in patients who underwent guided tissue regeneration (GTR) and compared the same with open flap debridement (OFD) six months post treatment.

Materials and Methods

Records of 58 sites in 48 patients who had undergone GTR (28 sites) and OFD (30 sites) for infrabony defects were evaluated for CAL gain, PPD reduction, change in GR, FMBS, and FMPS at baseline and 6 months after surgery. Pocket closure and COM were used to assess the efficacy of both treatments.

Results

Statistically significant improvements were seen in both the groups except GR from baseline to 6 months. GTR-treated sites showed better improvements with a statistically significant difference in CAL gain after 6 months. Pocket closure and percentage of treatment success and failure in both the groups assessed using a COM were similar and did not differ statistically.

Conclusion

Treatment of infrabony defects with GTR combined with a xenograft offers better CAL gain after 6 months compared to OFD alone and also found that baseline PPD and FMBS were the factors determining pocket closure.

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.

Peri-implantitis: Summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the influence of implant and prosthetic components on peri-implant tissue health. A further aim was to evaluate peri-implant soft-tissue changes following surgical peri-implantitis treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Group discussions based on two systematic reviews (SR) and one critical review (CR) addressed (i) the influence of implant material and surface characteristics on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis, (ii) implant and restorative design elements and the associated risk for peri-implant diseases, and (iii) peri-implant soft-tissue level changes and patient-reported outcomes following peri-implantitis treatment. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were discussed within the group and approved during plenary sessions.

RESULTS

Data from preclinical in vivo studies demonstrated significantly greater radiographic bone loss and increased area of inflammatory infiltrate at modified compared to non-modified surface implants. Limited clinical data did not show differences between modified and non-modified implant surfaces in incidence or progression of peri-implantitis (SR). There is some evidence that restricted accessibility for oral hygiene and an emergence angle of >30 combined with a convex emergence profile of the abutment/prosthesis are associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (CR). Reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis resulted in significantly less soft-tissue recession, when compared with access flap. Implantoplasty or the adjunctive use of a barrier membrane had no influence on the extent of peri-implant mucosal recession following peri-implantitis treatment (SR).

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthesis overcontouring and impaired access to oral hygiene procedures increases risk for peri-implantitis. When indicated, reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment may facilitate the maintenance of post-operative peri-implant soft-tissue levels.

Surgical approach combining implantoplasty and reconstructive therapy with locally delivered antibiotic in the treatment of peri-implantitis: A prospective clinical case series

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical treatment, resective surgery, reconstructive surgery, or combined approaches have been proposed for the treatment of peri-implantitis, with variable results.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 1-year clinical and radiographic outcomes following combined resective and reconstructive surgical treatment with topical piperacillin/tazobactam antibiotic in the management of peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-three patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included. Surgical treatment consisted of implantoplasty of the supra-crestal component of the defect, the application of a topical antibiotic solution over the implant surface, and subsequent reconstruction of the intra-osseous component of the peri-implant defect. The primary outcome was disease resolution, defined as the absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and/or suppuration on probing (SoP), a peri-implant pocket probing depth (PPD) ≤5 mm, and no bone loss >0.5 mm 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included changes in BoP, PPD, SoP, and peri-implant marginal bone levels. One implant per patient was included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The treatment success rate of the 43 dental implants included in the study was 86% at 1 year after surgery. Mean PPD and BoP decreased from 6.41 ± 2.11 mm and 100% at baseline to 3.19 ± 0.99 mm (p < 0.001) and 14% (p < 0.001) at 1 year, respectively. SoP was significantly reduced from 48.8% at baseline to 0% 1 year after surgery (p < 0.001). Radiographically, a mean defect fill of 2.64 ± 1.59 mm was recorded (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of a resective and reconstructive surgical approach together with locally delivered antibiotic achieved a high disease resolution rate after 1 year of follow-up and constitutes a viable option for the management of peri-implantitis.

Changes in peri-implant soft tissue levels following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To assess the changes in peri-implant soft tissue levels after the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies and case series, evaluating the changes in the position of the mucosal margin before and after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, were searched. Secondary outcomes were changes in keratinized mucosa (KM), radiographic bone levels, probing depths (PD), plaque indices, bleeding on probing and patient perception. Meta-analyses were performed to determine weighted mean differences (WMD) or effects (WME).

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles, reporting 20 investigations, were included. Reconstructive approaches yielded significantly less increase in mucosal recession, when compared to access flaps (n = 3, WMD = -1.35 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-2.62; -0.07], p = .038). When comparing among reconstructive surgical interventions similar outcomes were observed irrespective of the use of a barrier membrane (n = 3, WMD = -0.01 mm, 95% CI [-0.15; 0.13], p = .917). When considering the effects over time, limited mucosal recession was observed after reconstructive procedures (n = 23, WME = 0.389 mm, 95% CI [0.204; 0.574]), p = .001), while increased recession was reported with either resective or access flap surgery (n = 6, WME = 1.21 mm, 95% CI [0.70; 1.72], p = <.001; and n = 3, WME = 0.95 mm, 95% CI [0.20; 2.10], p = .106; respectively). When resective and reconstructive approaches were combined the highest values on peri-implant recession were reported (n = 2, WME = 1.97 mm, 95% CI [0.81; 3.14], p < .001). Reconstructive surgical interventions were associated with greater radiographic bone level gains, while similar values were reported for PD reduction when comparing reconstructive, access and resective procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Resective surgical procedures were associated with significant post-surgical recession while minimal recession was observed in regenerative interventions.

Peri-Implantitis Regenerative Therapy: A Review

Simple Summary

Regenerative therapies are one of the options to treat peri-implantitis diseases that cause peri-implant bone loss. This review reports classic and current literature to describe the available knowledge on regenerative peri-implant techniques.

Abstract

The surgical techniques available to clinicians to treat peri-implant diseases can be divided into resective and regenerative. Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory conditions affecting the soft and hard tissues around dental implants. Despite the large number of investigations aimed at identifying the best approach to treat these conditions, there is still no universally recognized protocol to solve these complications successfully and predictably. This review will focus on the regenerative treatment of peri-implant osseous defects in order to provide some evidence that can aid clinicians in the approach to peri-implant disease treatment.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without a deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a native bilayer collagen membrane: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To assess whether the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) improved healing of peri-implantitis-related bone defects at 12 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received surgical debridement (control group [CG]), and 34 received adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), recession (REC), cytokines (IL-1β, IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IP10, PDGF-BB, TNF-α, VEGF), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months.

RESULTS

RDF at the deepest site amounted 2.7 ± 1.3 mm in TG and 1.4 ± 1.2 mm in CG (p <.0001). PPD was reduced by 1.9 mm in TG and 2.3 mm in CG (p = .5783). There were no significant differences between groups regarding reductions of BOP, SUP, REC, cytokines levels, or oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 scores at 12 months. Successful treatment (RDF ≥ 1.0 mm, PPD ≤5 mm, ≤1/4 site with BOP grade 1, no SUP) was identified in 32% in TG and 21% in CG.

CONCLUSIONS

DBBM and NBCM resulted in significantly more RDF than debridement alone. No difference was found in any clinical parameters or PROs between the groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375750.

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.

Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis: a two-center 12-month randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis in a two-center randomized trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five individuals with 63 implants with probing depth (PPD) ≥5mm, bleeding on probing (BOP), and radiographic bone loss ≥2mm were included. In the NST (30 implants), submucosal debridement was performed. In the ST (33 implants), a mucoperiosteal flap was raised and surfaces were decontaminated only by debridement as performed in NST. Clinical parameters and radiographs were compared at baseline and after 12 months. Means and standard errors were reported.

RESULTS

PPD considering all implant sites reduced significantly in NST from 4.14±0.25 to 3.25±0.18mm. In ST, PPD also significantly changed (3.74±0.22 to 3.00±0.29mm). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. For deep sites (≥7mm), PPD was 7.82±0.20mm at baseline and reduced to 5.10±0.30mm in NST, while in ST group, it was 7.11±0.11mm and changed to 5.22±0.91mm (between-groups p value=0.51). BOP significantly reduced from ~60 to 35% of all sites in both groups, without significant differences between them. When sites with radiographic bone level ≥3mm at baseline were analyzed, there was a significant difference between groups in bone gain after 12 months in favor of ST (ST=0.78±0.30mm compared to NST=0.25mm±0.13; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis present similar clinical outcomes. Bone levels were better improved in ST than NST for sites with higher initial bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The treatment of peri-implantitis is still a challenge in clinical practice, since less than half of affected implants achieve health after surgical or non-surgical debridement. Considering the lack of clinically relevant differences between these two treatments, non-surgical debridement should be considered the first therapeutic choice for peri-implantitis, mainly mild to moderate cases.

Treatment of Early Developed Peri-Implantitis in Fibula Graft Site

The fibula microvascular free flap technique and placement of dental endosseous implants seem to be viable options for reconstructing the mandible, following a resective jaw surgery. The causes of early failures of implants include bone overheating, latent infection by surgical trauma, the factors related with the implant, and overcompression. This case report reviews the mechanisms of early post-implantation bone loss, and suggests the course of treatment for early peri-implantitis for implants that show no mobility. Radiographs and clinical data presented have shown that the surgical treatment of early developed peri-implantitis using GBR methods in free fibula graft sites offers promising and stabile results.

Peri-Implantitis: A Clinical Update on Prevalence and Surgical Treatment Outcomes

Dental implants may be considered a reliable routine procedure in clinical practice for the replacement of missing teeth. Results from long-term studies indicate that implant-supported dental prostheses constitute a predictable treatment method for the management of fully and partially edentulous patients. Implants and their restorations, however, are not free from biological complications. In fact, peri-implantitis, defined as progressive bone loss associated to clinical inflammation, is not a rare finding nowadays. This constitutes a concern for clinicians and patients given the negative impact on the quality of life and the sequelae originated by peri-implantitis lesions. The purpose of this narrative review is to report on the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to overview the indications, contraindications, complexity, predictability and effectiveness of the different surgical therapeutic modalities to manage this disorder.

Two- and ten-year follow-up of patients responding and non-responding to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A retrospective evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To report a follow-up of patients following the surgical anti-infective treatment of peri-implantitis and to identify possible risk indicators for the progression of disease during supportive peri-implant therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Following peri-implant surgery, 41 patients (213 implants) were enrolled in a supportive peri-implant therapy. At the 2-year follow-up, two groups of patients were identified, with or without residual peri-implant pockets (responding and non-responding group). Eighteen patients (85 implants) of the non-responding group were followed for further 8 years.

RESULTS

At the 2-year examination, 73 of the 117 treated implants (62.4%) presented healthy peri-implant condition, while 44 (37.6%) presented persisting peri-implantitis associated with substantial bone loss before treatment. The 10-year examination of the non-responding group revealed that 1) 84% of the implants that regained health following surgery remained healthy during the entire observation period; 2) 66% of the implants with residual pockets following surgery maintained stable peri-implant condition; and 3) 29% of all treated implants showed disease progression, and 11 of those were extracted. Presence of pockets at 3-4 sites of the implants was identified as risk indicator for progression of peri-implantitis.

CONCLUSION

The peri-implant health achieved following therapy was maintained for most of the implants during the follow-up. Residual pockets were a frequent finding at implants with substantial bone loss before treatment. Presence of pockets around the entire circumference of the implants resulted as a risk indicator for further disease progression. The probability of progression of peri-implant disease increased with increased observation time.

Assessment of peri-implant tissue dimensions following surgical therapy of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects

Background

To evaluate peri-implant tissue dimensions following implantoplasty and/or regenerative therapy of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis in dogs.

Material and methods

At all defect sites (n = 6 dogs, n = 48 implants), the intrabony component was filled with a particulate bovine-derived natural bone mineral (NBM). The supracrestal component was treated by either the application of an equine bone block (EB) or implantoplasty. In a split-mouth design, NBM and EB were soak-loaded with rhBMP-2 or sterile saline. All sites were covered using a native collagen membrane and left to heal in a submerged position for 12 weeks. The horizontal mucosal thickness (hMT) and bone thickness (hBT) were measured at four reference points: (v0) at the level of implant shoulder (IS), (v1) 50% of the distance IS-bone crest (BC), (v2) at the BC, and (v3) at the most coronal extension of the bone-to-implant contact.

Results

The general tendency indicated a gradual increase in hMT from the IS (v0) toward BC (v2), which was more pronounced at implant sites treated with the regenerative approach. The hBT values increased from v2 to v3, with the highest values at the v3 region measured for implant sites treated with adjunctive rhBMP-2. For sites treated with implantoplasty, the linear regression model demonstrated an inverse correlation between hMT and hBT, whereas a positive correlation was observed at those sites treated with the regenerative approach.

Conclusion

Horizontal soft and hard tissue dimensions were similar among different treatment groups.

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.

Repeated delivery of chlorhexidine chips for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is a challenging condition to manage and is frequently treated using non-surgical debridement. The local delivery of antimicrobial agents has demonstrated benefit in mild to moderate cases of peri-implantitis. This study compared the safety and efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg chip (CHX chips) as an adjunctive treatment to subgingival debridement in patients afflicted with peri-implantitis.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel Phase-3 study was conducted. Peri-implantitis patients with implant pocket depths (IPD) of 5-8 mm underwent subgingival implant surface debridement followed by repeated bi-weekly supragingival plaque removal and chlorhexidine chips application (ChxC group) for 12 weeks, or similar therapy but without application of ChxC (control group). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Plaque and gingival indices were measured at every visit whereas IPD, recession, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 8, 12, 16, 24 week.

RESULTS

A total of 290 patients were included: 146 in the ChxC group and 144 in the control. At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in IPD (P = 0.01) was measured in the ChxC group (1.76 ± 1.13 mm) compared with the control group (1.54 ± 1.13 mm). IPD reduction of ≥2 mm was found in 59% and 47.2% of the implants in the ChxC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Changes in gingival recession (0.29 ± 0.68 mm versus 0.15 ± 0.55 mm, P = 0.015) and relative attachment gain (1.47 ± 1.32 mm and 1.39 ± 1.27 mm, P = 0.0017) were significantly larger in the ChxC group. Patients in the ChxC group that were < 65 years exhibited significantly better responses (P < 0.02); likewise, non-smokers had similarly better response (P < 0.02). Both protocols were well tolerated, and no severe treatment-related adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with peri-implantitis that were treated with an intensive treatment protocol of bi-weekly supragingival plaque removal and local application of chlorhexidine chips had greater mean IPD reduction and greater percentile of sites with IPD reduction of ≥2 mm as compared with bi-weekly supra-gingival plaque removal.

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

Objectives

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

Materials and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Laser-assisted regenerative surgical therapy for peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Different surgical approaches have been proposed to treat peri-implantitis defects with limited effectiveness and predictability. Laser has been proposed as an effective tool to assist in bacterial decontamination and modulating peri-implant tissue inflammation. The aim of this pilot clinical trial was to evaluate the adjunctive benefits of Er:YAG laser irradiation for regenerative surgical therapy of peri-implantitis-associated osseous defects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis with a radiographic infrabony defect were randomized into two groups. Both test and control groups received the following treatment: open flap mechanical debridement, supracrestal implantoplasty, bone grafting using a mixture of human allograft with demineralized bone matrix human allograft putty, and then covered with acellular dermal matrix membrane. The only difference in the test group was the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser to modulate and remove inflammatory tissue as well as to decontaminate the implant surface. Clinical assessments, including pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival index (GI) were performed by calibrated masked examiners for up to 6 months following surgery. Standardized radiographs were also taken to evaluate linear bone gain and defect bone fill. Student t-tests were used to analyze those clinical parameters.

RESULTS

Both groups showed significant reductions in PD, GI, and CAL gain overtime. The test group demonstrated significantly higher PD reductions at the site level compared to the control group (2.65 ± 2.14 versus 1.85 ± 1.71 mm; test versus control, P = 0.014). There were no statistical differences found in CAL gain (1.90 ± 2.28 versus 1.47 ± 1.76 mm; test versus control), GI reduction (-1.14 ± 1.15 versus -1.04 ± 0.89; test versus control), radiographic linear bone gain (1.27 ± 1.14 versus 1.08 ± 1.04 mm; test versus control) or proportional defect size reduction (- 24.46 ± 19.00% versus -15.19 ± 23.56%; test versus control). There was a positive trend for test patients on PD reduction and CAL gain found in narrow infrabony defects. Major membrane exposure negatively impaired the overall treatment outcome of CAL gain (2.47 ± 1.84 versus 1.03 ± 1.48 mm; no/minor versus major exposure, P = 0.051) and PD reduction in the test group (-3.63 ± 2.11 versus -1.66 ± 1.26 mm, P = 0.049).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study indicated using laser irradiation during peri-implantitis regenerative therapy may aid in better probing PD reduction. Nonetheless, a larger sample size and longer follow-up is needed to confirm if Er:YAG laser irradiation provides additional clinical benefits for peri-implantitis regenerative therapy (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03127228).

The effects of decontamination methods of dental implant surface on cytokine expression analysis in the reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implantitis

The aim of this trial was to analyze the effect of implant surface decontamination procedures combined with reconstructive surgical treatment (RST) of peri-implantitis on gene expression levels of selected biomarkers in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF). Forty patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated with RST + decontamination of the implant surface using sterile saline and ozone therapy (ozone group) or sterile saline alone (control group). The gene expression levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-17, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), sclerostin (SOST) and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were evaluated by qPCR analysis at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Changes in cytokine mRNA expression levels were analyzed and compared with clinical/radiographic parameters. Both decontamination methods lead to the downregulations of the selected gene expressions. Ozone group showed significantly higher clinical attachment level (CAL) and radiographic defect fill (DF) values at 6 months compared to the control group (p = 0.026 and p = 0.011). The downregulation of SOST levels was significantly associated with probing depth reduction and radiographic DF (p < 0.05). Implant surface decontamination procedures applied with the RST contribute to a notable reduction in immuno-inflammatory response. The additional use of ozone therapy could have favorable effects in anti-infective regimens of peri-implantitis therapy. SOST, which was found to have significant relationship with both clinical and radiographic outcomes, could be a valuable indicator for the progression of peri-implantitis and may aid the development of new therapeutic strategies for bone gain in the RST of 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.

Influence of Implant Material and Surface on Differentiation and Proliferation of Human Adipose-Derived Stromal Cells

For the guided regeneration of periimplant hard and soft tissues, human adipose-derived stromal cells (hADSC) seem to be a promising source for mesenchymal stromal cells. For this, the proliferation and differentiation of hADSC were evaluated on titanium and zirconia dental implants with different surface treatments. Results were compared to edaphic cells as human osteoblasts (hOB) and human gingival fibroblasts (HGF). Primary cells were cultured on (1) titanium implants with a polished surface (Ti-PT), (2) sandblasted and acid-etched titanium (Ti-SLA), (3) sandblasted and alkaline etched zirconia (ZrO₂-ZLA) and (4) machined zirconia (ZrO₂-M). The cell proliferation and differentiation on osteogenic lineage were assessed after 1, 7 and 14 days. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA and a modified Levene test with a statistical significance at p = 0.05. PostHoc tests were performed by Bonferroni-Holm. Zirconia dental implants with rough surface (ZrO₂-ZLA) showed the highest proliferation rates (p = 0.048). The osteogenic differentiation occurred early for zirconia and later for titanium implants, and it was enhanced for rough surfaces in comparison to polished/machined surfaces. Zirconia was more effective to promote the proliferation and differentiation of hADSCs in comparison to titanium. Rough surfaces were able to improve the biological response for both zirconia and titanium.