Does peri-implant bone loss affect the LL-37 and proteinase 3 levels in peri-implant sulcus fluid?

Biological Response of the Peri-Implant Mucosa to Different Definitive Implant Rehabilitation Materials

BACKGROUND

Sealing the peri-implant tissue is a determining factor for long-term implant survival. In the transmucosal region, the cervical fraction of the prosthetic crown is in contact with these tissues, so mucointegration will also be influenced by the biomaterial used for the prosthetic restoration. This study aims to compare the tissue response generated by definitive restorative materials and polymeric materials from a histological point of view.

METHODS

This study performed an observational prospective cohort study in which biopsies of the peri-implant mucosa were taken after placement of implant-supported prosthetic restorations made of different materials (zirconium oxide, lithium disilicate, and PMMA).

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was observed in the increase in the thickness of the non-keratinized epithelium when comparing the definitive materials (zirconium oxide/lithium disilicate) vs. the provisional material (PMMA) and in the number of collagen fibers when comparing zirconium oxide and lithium disilicate.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that zirconia is the material that presents the most adequate biological response of peri-implant tissues. It shows a lower intensity of inflammatory cellular content, a total normality in the number of collagen fibers (the arrangement of the fibers is normal in 90% of the cases), and vascular proliferation of connective tissue in 83% of the cases. These parameters make it a material with a predictable response. Similarly, only the following slight statistically significant differences between the definitive and provisional materials are observed, indicating that the biological response generated by the provisional material (PMMA) is not very different from that obtained with the placement of the definitive restoration.

Effect of periostin in peri-implant sulcular fluid and gingival crevicular fluid: A comparative study

Background

Various similarities have been observed between gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF). This has resulted in research that has evaluated similar biological fluid markers that are similar to those present within the gingival sulcus. These biomarkers have high sensitivity and are a reliable biological tool when compared to clinical and/or radiographic examination and aid in diagnosis as well as monitoring the progression of periodontal disease surrounding teeth as well as the implants.

Aim

The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of periostin in peri-implant sulcular and gingival crevicular fluids.

Materials and Methods

This experimental prospective in vitro analysis was done following clearance by the institutional ethical committee. A total of 100 patients were selected. They were categorized into two groups: (I) Group A patients had peri-implant disease (n = 50), whereas (II) Group B patients had periodontitis (n = 50). Clinical loss of attachment score was noted in six sites around natural teeth and four sites around the implants. Presterilized filter paper strips were inserted within the sulcus/pocket till pressure was felt for 60 s. Periostin concentration levels in GCF and PISF samples were measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay technique. Statistical analysis of data collected was performed using Shapiro-Wilk statistical tool for normally distributed numerical data.

. Results

Mean ± standard deviation concentration of periostin in gingival crevicular fluid from periodontitis cases was recorded as 20.15 ± 2.76 ng/30sn, whereas in PISF was 19.23 ± 1.89 ng/30sn. On statistical analysis, no statistically significant differences were seen after comparing the concentration of periostin in periodontitis as well as peri-implantitis groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The present study analyzed periostin levels in gingival crevicular fluid obtained from patients diagnosed with periodontitis and sulcular fluid obtained from the sulcus around implants. Early biological markers or indicators of inflammation should be studied to determine the prognosis of treatment apart from the clinical assessment for the patient's benefit.