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

The clinical efficacy of powder air-polishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Peri-implant diseases, characterized by inflammatory conditions affecting peri-implant tissues, encompass peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion limited to the mucosa around an implant, while peri-implantitis extends from the mucosa to the supporting bone, causing a loss of osseointegration. For non-surgical treatments, we tested the null hypothesis that the presence or absence of air-polishing made no difference. The study focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing air-polishing with mechanical or ultrasonic debridement, evaluating outcomes such as bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), plaque index/plaque score (PI/PS), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone loss, and mucosal recession (MR). Two independent reviewers conducted data extraction and quality assessments, considering short-term (<6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) follow-up periods. After screening, ten articles were included in the meta-analysis. In nonsurgical peri-implant disease management, air-polishing moderately mitigated short-term PI/PS for peri-implant mucositis and showed a similar improvement in long-term BOP and bone loss for peri-implantitis compared to the control group. The Egger test found no evidence of publication bias except for the long-term PI/PS of peri-implant mucositis. Leave-one-out analysis confirmed the stability of the results. The findings highlight the need for future research with longer-term follow-up and high-quality, multi-center, large-sample RCTs.

Do systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole during the non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment phase prevent the need for future surgical treatment? A retrospective long-term cohort study

AIM

The aim of this retrospective long-term follow-up of a 3-month RCT was to assess whether non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive systemic antibiotics influenced the need for additional surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients enrolled in an aftercare programme following non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment, with or without systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole, were analysed. Data had previously been collected pre-treatment (T0) and 3 months after treatment (T1) and were additionally collected during subsequent aftercare visits, until the final assessment (T2). Primary outcome was the need for additional surgical peri-implantitis therapy during the aftercare programme, analysed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Secondary outcomes involved clinical parameters, assessed using parametric and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients (22 AB- group, 23 AB+ group) were included. The mean follow-up time between T1 and T2 was 35.9 months (SD = 21.0). 73.9% of the AB+ group and 50.0% of the AB- group did not receive additional surgical therapy (log-rank test, p = .110). The adjusted Cox regression model did not provide a significant result for antibiotics (β = .441, 95% CI = 0.159-1.220, p = .115). Univariable regression analysis highlighted the influence of baseline peri-implant pocket depth on the need for surgical treatment (β = 1.446, 95% CI = 1.035-2.020, p = .031).

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole administered during non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment do not seem to prevent the need for additional surgical therapy in the long term, during a structured aftercare programme.

Assessment of the Effect on Periodontitis of Antibiotic Therapy and Bacterial Lysate Treatment

Periodontitis is an inflammatory process that starts with soft tissue inflammation caused by the intervention of oral bacteria. By modulating local immunity, it is possible to supplement or replace current therapeutic methods. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of an immunostimulatory treatment with the antibiotherapy usually applied to periodontitis patients. On a model of periodontitis induced in 30 rats (divided into three equal groups) with bacterial strains selected from the human oral microbiome (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Streptococcus oralis), we administered antibiotics, bacterial lysates and saline for 10 days. Clinically, no significant lesions were observed between the groups, but hematologically, we detected a decrease in lymphocyte and neutrophil counts in both the antibiotic and lysate-treated groups. Immunologically, IL-6 remained elevated compared to the saline group, denoting the body's effort to compensate for bone loss due to bacterial action. Histopathologically, the results show more pronounced oral tissue regeneration in the antibiotic group and a reduced inflammatory reaction in the lysate group. We can conclude that the proposed bacterial lysate has similar effects to antibiotic therapy and can be considered an option in treating periodontitis, thus eliminating the unnecessary use of antibiotics.

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.

Favorable subgingival plaque microbiome shifts are associated with clinical treatment for peri-implant diseases

We performed a longitudinal shotgun metagenomic investigation of the plaque microbiome associated with peri-implant diseases in a cohort of 91 subjects with 320 quality-controlled metagenomes. Through recently improved taxonomic profiling methods, we identified the most discriminative species between healthy and diseased subjects at baseline, evaluated their change over time, and provided evidence that clinical treatment had a positive effect on plaque microbiome composition in patients affected by mucositis and peri-implantitis.

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.

The Efficacy of Ten Different Adjunctive Measures in Patients with Nonsurgically Treated Peri-Implant Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of 10 adjunctive measures on non-surgical therapy outcomes for peri-implant disease. Methods: We formulated the study question and keywords following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Randomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Two researchers assessed the quality of included literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data analysis and ranking were performed using Stata 15.0 software. Results: This study, involving 51 pieces of literature and 2660 samples, conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which revealed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) significantly reduced probing pocket depth values in patients with peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 96.3%) and peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 96.7%). In addition, it showed an improvement in bleeding on probing (BOP) values for peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 91.6%). Furthermore, diode lasers improved BOP values for peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 76.5%). Conclusions: According to the NMA results and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), PDT and diode laser outperform other adjuncts in peri-implant disease.

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.

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

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 adjuvant metronidazole therapy on peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical studies

Peri-implant diseases are pathological conditions that affect the survival of dental implants. Etiological studies are limited, accepting a prevalence of 20% at the implant level and 24% at the patient level. The benefits of adjuvant metronidazole are controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs according to PRISMA and PICOS was performed with an electronic search over the last 10 years in MEDLINE (PubMed), WOS, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The risk of bias was measured using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the methodological quality using the Jadad scale. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan version 5.4.1, based on mean difference and standard deviation, with 95% confidence intervals; the random-effects model was selected, and the threshold for statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. A total of 38 studies were collected and five were selected. Finally, one of the studies was eliminated because of unanalyzable results. All studies reached a high methodological quality. A total of 289 patients were studied with follow-up periods from 2 weeks to 1 year. Statistical significance was only found, with respect to the use of adjunctive metronidazole, in the pooled analysis of the studies (p = 0.02) and in the analysis of the radiographic values reported on peri-implant marginal bone levels, in the studies with a 3-month follow-up (p = 0.03). Discrepancies in the use of systemic metronidazole require long-term randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to determine the role of antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

A Review of Novel Strategies for Human Periodontal Ligament Stem Cell Ex Vivo Expansion: Are They an Evidence-Based Promise for Regenerative Periodontal Therapy?

Periodontitis is a gingiva disease sustained by microbially associated and host-mediated inflammation that results in the loss of the connective periodontal tissues, including periodontal ligament and alveolar bone. Symptoms include swollen gingiva, tooth loss and, ultimately, ineffective mastication. Clinicians utilize regenerative techniques to rebuild and recover damaged periodontal tissues, especially in advanced periodontitis. Human periodontal ligament stem cells (hPDLSCs) are considered an appealing source of stem cells for regenerative therapy in periodontium. hPDLSCs manifest the main properties of mesenchymal stem cells, including the ability to self-renew and to differentiate in mesodermal cells. Significant progress has been made for clinical application of hPDLSCs; nevertheless, some problems remain, including the small number of cells isolated from each sample. In recent decades, hPDLSC ex vivo expansion and differentiation have been improved by modifying cell culture conditions, especially with the supplementation of cytokines' or growth factors' mix, chemicals, and natural compounds, or by using the decellularized extracellular matrix. Here, we analyzed the changes in stemness properties and differentiation potential of hPDLSCs when culturing in alternative media. In addition, we focused on the possibility of replacing FBS with human emoderivates to minimize the risks of xenoimmunization or zoonotic transmission when cells are expanded for therapeutic purposes.

Non-Surgical Therapy and Oral Microbiota Features in Peri-Implant Complications: A Brief Narrative Review

The therapeutic discretion in cases of peri-implantitis should take into account the limits and advantages of specific therapeutic itineraries tailored according to each clinical case and each individual patient. This type of oral pathology emphasizes the complex classification and diagnostic issues coupled with the need for targeted treatments, in light of the oral peri-implant microbiota changes. This review highlights the current indications for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, describing the specific therapeutic efficacy of different approaches and discussing the more appropriate application of single non-invasive therapies The non-surgical treatment choice with antiseptics or antibiotics (single or combined, local, or systemic) for short courses should be considered on a case-by-case basis to minimize the incidence of side effects and concomitantly avoid disease progression.

Outcome indicators of non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a prospective case series analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify patient and implant indicators influencing the non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis at 6 months of follow-up.

METHODS

This case series involved patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis according to the 2017 World Workshop criteria. Non-surgical therapy consisted of mechanical debridement of the peri-implant pockets combined with metronidazole 500 mg 3 times a day for 7 days. At baseline and at 6 months, clinical and radiographic variables were collected to calculate treatment success (probing pocket depth reduction to 5 mm without bleeding on probing or < 5 mm irrespective of bleeding on probing at all implant sites, and lack of bone loss progression). The primary outcome was treatment success (%) at 6 months. The influence of the patient and implant/prosthetic variables upon disease resolution was assessed through simple and multiple logistic regression analyses at patient and implant level, using generalized estimation equations models.

RESULTS

A total of 74 patients and 107 implants were analyzed at 6 months. Disease resolution was established in 25.7% of the patients and 24.1% of the implants. Patients with stage IV and grade C periodontitis, inadequate oral hygiene at baseline, and wide diameter (≥ 4.5 mm) presented significantly greater treatment failure, whereas smokers and former smokers demonstrated a tendency toward failure. At 6 months, there was a significant decrease in probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing of 1.08 ± 1.06 mm and 14%, respectively. Radiographically, a significant gain in marginal bone level of 0.43 ± 0.56 mm was observed.

CONCLUSION

Disease resolution after non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is negatively influenced by the loss of support of the adjacent periodontium, poor baseline oral hygiene, and wide diameter implants (≥ 4.5 mm).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study helps to discriminate the clinical situations in which non-surgical treatment is less likely to achieve treatment success at short term.

Antibiotics as Adjunctive Therapy in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The role of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic therapy, local or systemic, as an adjunctive to the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Primary outcomes were: implant success rate and complications, changes in radiographic bone level, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and peri-implantitis resolution. Six studies were included: two using topical and four systemic antibiotics. Adjunctive local antibiotics improved PPD (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78), BOP (MD = 0.15% (95% CI 0.10, 0.19)) and the success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84). No significant difference in bone level and success rate were found with the use of systemic antibiotics, although they appeared to improve PPD (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and PAL (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive local antibiotics showed improved outcomes in terms of success rate, PPD and BOP, while adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved PPD and PAL only. Peri-implantitis resolution was about 20-30% using adjunctive local antibiotics, whilst it ranged from 2% to 65% with adjunctive systemic antibiotics. Findings are still controversial, since they are based on few studies with high heterogeneity, at the uncertain or high risk of bias and involve few patients. Non-surgical debridement and maintenance periodontal support therapy remain pivotal and the adjunctive use of antibiotics for peri-implantitis cannot be routinely recommended, even considering the increasing concern on antibiotic resistance.

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).

Antibiotic Resistance in Patients with Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Scoping Review

The implementation of adjunctive antibiotics has been recommended for the therapy of peri-implantitis (PI). In this review, antibiotic resistance patterns in PI patients were assessed. A systematic scoping review of observational studies and trials was established in conjunction with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The SCOPUS, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCIELO, Web of Science, and LILACS databases were reviewed along with the gray literature. The primary electronic examination produced 139 investigations. Finally, four observational studies met the selection criteria. These studies evaluated 214 implants in 168 patients. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum mainly presented high resistance to tetracycline, metronidazole, and erythromycin in PI patients. Similarly, Aggregatibacter&nbsp;actinomycetemcomitans was also highly resistant to clindamycin and doxycycline. Other microorganisms such as Tannerella forsythia, Parvimonas micra, and Prevotella intermedia/nigrescens also presented significant levels of resistance to other antibiotics including amoxicillin, azithromycin, and moxifloxacin. However, most microorganisms did not show resistance to the combination amoxicillin metronidazole. Although the management of adjunctive antimicrobials in the therapy of PI is controversial, in this review, the resistance of relevant microorganisms to antibiotics used to treat PI, and usually prescribed in dentistry, was observed. Clinicians should consider the antibiotic resistance demonstrated in the treatment of PI patients and its public health consequences.

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.

Non-surgical mechanical therapy of peri-implantitis with or without repeated adjunctive diode laser application. A 6-month double-blinded randomized clinical trial

Objectives

The objective of this study is to investigate the outcomes following non‐surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis (PI) with or without adjunctive diode laser application.

Materials and methods

A double‐blinded randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in 25 subjects with 25 implants diagnosed with PI. Following curettage of granulation tissue, test implants (T) were treated with adjunctive application of a diode laser for 90 s (settings: 810 nm, 2.5 W, 50 Hz, 10 ms), while at control implants (C) non‐activated adjunctive diode laser was applied. The entire treatment procedure was performed at days 0 (i.e., baseline), 7 and 14. The primary outcome measure was change in mean pocket probing depth (PPD). Clinical and microbiological outcomes, as well as host‐derived inflammatory markers were evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months, while radiographic outcomes were assessed at baseline and at the 6‐month follow‐up.

Results

No statistically significant differences with respect to baseline patient characteristic were observed. After 6 months, both test and control implants yielded statistically significant PPD changes compared with baseline (T: 1.28 and C: 1.47 mm) but without statistically significant difference between groups (p = .381). No statistically significant changes in peri‐implant marginal bone levels were detected (p = .936). No statistically significant differences between test and control implants were observed with respect to microbiological and host‐derived parameters (p > .05). At the 6‐month follow‐up, treatment success was observed in 41.7% (n = 5) of test and 46.2% (n = 6) of control patients, respectively (p = .821).

Conclusion

Repeated adjunctive application of diode laser in the non‐surgical management of PI failed to provide significant benefits compared with mechanical instrumentation alone.

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.

Non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment with or without systemic antibiotics; a randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives

To assess the adjunctive effect of systemic amoxicillin (AMX) and metronidazole (MTZ) in patients receiving non‐surgical treatment (NST) for peri‐implantitis (PI).

Materials and methods

Thirty‐seven patients were randomized into an experimental group treated with NST plus AMX + MTZ (N = 18) and a control group treated with NST alone (N = 19). Clinical parameters were evaluated at 12 weeks post‐treatment. The primary outcome was the change in peri‐implant pocket depth (PIPD) from baseline to 12 weeks, while secondary outcomes included bleeding on probing (BoP), suppuration on probing (SoP), and plaque. Data analysis was performed at patient level (one target site per patient).

Results

All 37 patients completed the study. Both groups showed a significant PIPD reduction after NST. The antibiotics group showed a higher mean reduction in PIPD at 12 weeks, compared with the control group (2.28 ± 1.49 mm vs. 1.47 ± 1.95 mm), however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no significant effect of various potential confounders on PIPD reduction. Neither treatment resulted in significant improvements in BoP at follow‐up; 30 of 37 (81%) target sites still had BoP after treatment. Only two implants, one in each group, exhibited a successful outcome defined as PIPD < 5 mm, and absence of BoP and SoP.

Conclusions

Non‐surgical treatment was able to reduce PIPD at implants with PI. The adjunctive use of systemic AMX and MTZ did not show statistically significant better results compared to NST alone. NST with or without antibiotics was ineffective to completely resolve inflammation around dental implants.

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.

Adjunctive benefits of systemic metronidazole on non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

AIM

To study clinical, radiographic, and microbiological outcomes after non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis with or without adjunctive systemic metronidazole.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial was carried out in 32 subjects (62 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Implants received a mechanical non-surgical debridement session and systemic metronidazole or placebo. Clinical, radiographic, and microbiological outcomes were evaluated at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

After 12 months, the test treatment resulted in significantly greater PPD reduction (2.53 vs. 1.02 mm) and CAL gain (2.14 vs. 0.53 mm) (p value <.05) in comparison with placebo. The test treatment also resulted in additional radiographic bone gain (2.33 vs. 1.13 mm) compared with placebo (p value <.05). There was a significantly greater decrease in Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, and Campylobacter rectus counts compared with the control group (p value <.05). At the end of follow-up, 56.3% of patients met the success criteria in the test group and 25% in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of systemic metronidazole as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis resulted in significant additional improvements in clinical, radiographic, and microbiological parameters after 12 months of follow-up. This study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03564301).