Risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases: a retrospective cross-sectional study of Colombian patients with 1 to 18 years of follow-up

PURPOSE

Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years.

METHODS

The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.

Serum TNF-α level and probing depth as a combined indicator for peri-implant disease

Peri-implant disease (PID) is a general term for inflammatory diseases of soft and hard tissues that occur around implants, including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Cytokines are a class of small molecule proteins, which have various functions such as regulating innate immunity, adaptive immunity, and repairing damaged tissues. In order to explore the characteristics and clinical significance of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and tumor growth factor (TGF)-β1 expression levels in serum of patients with peri-implant disease, 31 patients with PID and 31 patients without PID were enrolled. The modified plaque index (mPLI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), and peri-implant probing depth (PD) were recorded. The levels of serum TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10, and TGF-β1 were detected by ELISA. TNF-α, mPLI, mSBI, and PD levels were significantly higher in the PID group. TGF-β1 levels were significantly higher in the control group. There was a significant positive correlation between TNF-α and mPLI, mSBI, and PD. TGF-β1 was negatively associated with TNF-α, mPLI, mSBI, and PD. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that TNF-α and PD were risk factors for the severity of PID. The receiver operating curve analysis showed that high TNF-α levels (cut-off value of 140 pg/mL) and greater PD values (cut-off value of 4 mm) were good predictors of PID severity with an area under the curve of 0.922. These results indicated that TNF-α and PD can be used as a biological indicator for diagnosing the occurrence and progression of PID.

Do Systemic Diseases and Medications Influence Dental Implant Osseointegration and Dental Implant Health? An Umbrella Review

The aim of this umbrella review is to evaluate what are the most common medications and systemic diseases that can affect bone-implant integration, the success rate and survival rate of dental implants, peri-implant tissue health, and implant loss. Systematic reviews, with meta-analysis or not, about how systemic diseases and medications influence dental implant osseointegration, survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant diseases, published only in the English language, are electronically searched across the most important scientific databases. The present umbrella review includes eight systematic reviews, and osteoporosis and diabetes are the most investigated pathologies. Systemic diseases, such as neurologic disorders, HIV, hypothyroidism, cardiovascular diseases, and drugs, such as beta blockers, anti-hypertensives, or diuretics do not show a decreased rate of implant osseointegration. It seems that drugs, such as proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) or serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), negatively affect implant osseointegration. Few studies compare the effects of drugs and systemic diseases on the parameters considered in this overview. It is important to underline how the results of this review need to be validated with subsequent and more reviews.

Clinical and Radiological Characterization of the Long-Term Association between Unaffected/Minimally Affected Implants and History of Severe Periodontitis: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were to compare, retrospectively, the clinical and radiographic modifications of periodontal parameters and peri-implant conditions and to analyze the relationship between the changes in periodontal parameters and peri-implant conditions over a mean follow-up period of 7.6 years in a treated population with progressive/uncontrolled periodontitis and at least one unaffected/minimally affected implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen partially edentulous patients having 77 implants inserted, with a mean age of 54.84 ± 7.60 years, were matched for age, gender, compliance, smoking status, general health, and implant characteristics. Periodontal parameters were evaluated in the remaining teeth. Means per teeth and implants were used when making comparisons.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and final examination in teeth for tPPD, tCAL and MBL. Furthermore, at 7.6 years, statistically significant differences existed between implants and teeth with regard to iCAL and tCAL (p = 0.03). Multiple regression analyses were performed and revealed a significant association regarding iPPD and CBL with smoking and periodontal diagnosis. In addition, FMBS was significantly associated with CBL. Unaffected/minimally affected implants were found more frequently in the posterior mandible, with longer lengths (>10 mm) and small diameters (<4 mm), including in screwed multi-unit bridges.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results appear to reflect minimally affected mean crestal bone-level loss around implants in comparison to the marginal bone-level loss around teeth when exposed to uncontrolled severe periodontal disease over a mean period of observation of 7.6 years, while the unaffected/minimally affected implants seemed to benefit from a combination of clinical factors, including posterior mandibular position, smaller diameters, and screwed multi-unit restorations.

Glycemic fluctuation exacerbates inflammation and bone loss and alters microbiota profile around implants in diabetic mice with experimental peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

The impact of glycemic fluctuation under diabetic condition on peri-implantitis in diabetic patients remains unclear. We hypothesized that glycemic fluctuation has greater adverse effect on experimental peri-implantitis, compared with sustained high blood glucose in diabetes.

RESULTS

Maxillary left first and second molars of diabetic db/db mice were extracted and were replaced with one dental implant in the healed edentulous space. Glycemic control or fluctuation were managed by constant or interrupted oral administration of rosiglitazone to these mice. Meanwhile, experimental peri-implantitis was induced by ligation around implants. After 14 weeks, inflammatory responses, and peri-implant bone loss, together with oral microbiota profile were analyzed. Diabetic mice with glycemic fluctuation showed greater peri-implant bone loss, inflammatory cell infiltration, and osteoclastogenesis, compared with mice with sustained hyperglycemia. Compared to sustained hyperglycemia, glycemic fluctuation led to further increase in IL-1β, TNFα, RANKL, TLR2/4, IRAK1, and TRAF6 mRNA expression in peri-implant gingival tissues. Both rosiglitazone-induced glycemic control and glycemic fluctuation caused microbiota profile change in diabetic mice compared to that in uncontrolled hyperglycemic mice.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that glycemic fluctuation may aggravate peri-implantitis inflammation and bone loss, which may be associated with a shift in peri-implant microbial profile towards dysbiotic changes and the activation of TLR2/4-IRAK1-TRAF6 signaling.

Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: A literature review

Peri-implant diseases are known as undesirable conditions that can occur after implant therapy. Although several risk indicators are becoming clear, the causes of peri-implant diseases have not been completely investigated. The purpose of this review was to summarize the prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases by referring to current papers from various angles. Many studies have reported the varied prevalence of peri-implant mucositis (23.9%-88.0% at the patient level and 9.7%-81.0% at the implant level) and peri-implantitis (8.9%-45% at the patient level and 4.8%-23.0% at the implant level). Additionally, several studies concluded that poor oral hygiene and lack of regular maintenance were strongly correlated with the development of both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Diabetes and a history of periodontitis were revealed as risk indicators for peri-implantitis. However, there was no definitive conclusion about the correlations between peri-implant diseases and other factors such as smoking, the shape of the implant superstructure, and the condition of the keratinized mucosa. Further studies useful for evidence-based decision-making are needed for predictable implant therapy in the long term.

Evaluation of peri-implant tissues condition after 10-15 years of loading in treated chronic periodontitis patients attending a private practice setting: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate the conditions of the peri-implant tissues in treated patients with chronic periodontitis (CP) and in patients without chronic periodontitis (noCP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A chart review was used to evaluate 267 implants, 134 placed in 42 CP treated patients and 133 placed in 46 noCP patients. The primary outcome was to evaluate the condition of the peri-implant tissues (health, peri-mucositis, and peri-implantitis). The secondary outcome was to evaluate the possible association of some variables, such as, Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding Index (BI), probing pocket depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), bone level (BL), loading time, type of implant placement and loading protocol, type of prosthesis, type of bone, implant manufacturer, and implant diameter and length, with the implant health condition.

RESULTS

The analysis of patient files revealed that after 10-15 years of loading (mean loading time 13.4 ± 2.07 years), six noCP patients (13%) experienced implant loss with a total of nine implants (6.7%) lost. The remaining 124 implants were classified: 54 (43.5%) as healthy, 45 (36.3%) with peri-implant mucositis, and 25 (20.2%) with peri-implantitis. Twelve CP subjects (28.5%) experienced implant loss with a total of 19 implants (14.1%) lost. The remaining 115 implants were classified: 34 (29.5%) as healthy, 40 (34.7%) with peri-implant mucositis and 41 (35.6%) with peri-implantitis. Compared with noCP subjects, only treated CP subjects with recurrent periodontal disease (RPD) showed differences statistically significant (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

After 10-15 years of loading, in CP patients treated in a private practice setting, most implants (70.1%) were classified with some type of peri-implant inflammation. In patients with RPD, a higher tendency for implant loss and peri-implant biologic complications was found.

Crestal bone loss associated with different implant surfaces in the posterior mandible in patients with a history of periodontitis. A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To retrospectively assess the interproximal bone loss (CBL) in external hexagon implants (EHI), with different surface micro-topography, placed in the posterior mandible in patients with a history of periodontitis undergoing supportive periodontal care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

268 consecutive patients received 755 EHI implants in the mandibular molar region between 2007 and 2015 with the following surface characteristics: 72 turned, 145 hybrids (double acid-etched/turned), and 538 anodized. CBL was yearly evaluated by analysing calibrated digital periapical radiographs, with a follow-up of 1-6 years. Data on implant survival were also calculated.

RESULTS

At 6 years (53 patients), the mean CBL was 1.34/1.42 mm at patient/implant level, respectively (range: 0-5.2 mm). Significantly higher CBL was detected in anodized implants than in turned and hybrid implants (1.92/1.46/1.02 mm) (p < .01). The maximum CBL values were found in 2 anodized implants at 4 years (6.3 and 8.1 mm). CBL ≥2 mm was detected in 18% of implants at 3 years and 35% at 6 (p < 2.2 × 10^-16 ), this prevalence being 2.6 times higher in the anodized than in the hybrid and turned group (40%/15.6%, p < .0094). At 6 years, 25 anodized implants presented CBL ≥3 mm (18%). 6 anodized implants (5 patients) were removed between 4 and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

A significant higher CBL was observed in anodized, compared to hybrid and turned implants, when placed in the mandibular molar region of periodontal patients, with a follow-up of 1 to 6 years.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

The objective of this review is to identify case definitions and clinical criteria of peri-implant healthy tissues, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. The case definitions were constructed based on a review of the evidence applicable for diagnostic considerations. In summary, the diagnostic definition of peri-implant health is based on the following criteria: 1) absence of peri-implant signs of soft tissue inflammation (redness, swelling, profuse bleeding on probing), and 2) the absence of further additional bone loss following initial healing. The diagnostic definition of peri-implant mucositis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, line or drop of bleeding within 30 seconds following probing), combined with 2) no additional bone loss following initial healing. The clinical definition of peri-implantitis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation, 2) radiographic evidence of bone loss following initial healing, and 3) increasing probing depth as compared to probing depth values collected after placement of the prosthetic reconstruction. In the absence of previous radiographs, radiographic bone level ≥3 mm in combination with BOP and probing depths ≥6 mm is indicative of peri-implantitis.

Peri-implantitis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview on peri-implantitis for the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: 1) definition of peri-implantitis; 2) conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis, 3) onset and pattern of disease progression, 4) characteristics of peri-implantitis, 5) risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis, and 6) progressive crestal bone loss in the absence of soft tissue inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

The objective of this review is to identify case definitions and clinical criteria of peri-implant healthy tissues, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. The case definitions were constructed based on a review of the evidence applicable for diagnostic considerations. In summary, the diagnostic definition of peri-implant health is based on the following criteria: 1) absence of peri-implant signs of soft tissue inflammation (redness, swelling, profuse bleeding on probing), and 2) the absence of further additional bone loss following initial healing. The diagnostic definition of peri-implant mucositis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, line or drop of bleeding within 30 seconds following probing), combined with 2) no additional bone loss following initial healing. The clinical definition of peri-implantitis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation, 2) radiographic evidence of bone loss following initial healing, and 3) increasing probing depth as compared to probing depth values collected after placement of the prosthetic reconstruction. In the absence of previous radiographs, radiographic bone level ≥3 mm in combination with BOP and probing depths ≥6 mm is indicative of peri-implantitis.

Peri-implantitis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review provides an evidence-based overview on peri-implantitis for the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: 1) definition of peri-implantitis; 2) conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis, 3) onset and pattern of disease progression, 4) characteristics of peri-implantitis, 5) risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis, and 6) progressive crestal bone loss in the absence of soft tissue inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Implant-based factor as possible risk for peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis is currently a topic of major interest in implantology. Considered one of the main reasons of late implant failure, there is an emerged concern whether implant characteristics could trigger inflammatory lesion and loss of supporting bone. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an evidence based overview on the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: implant surface topography; implant location; occlusal overload; time in function; prosthesis-associated factors (rehabilitation extension, excess of cement and implant-abutment connection); and metal particle release. Although existing data suggests that some implant-based factors may increase the risk of peri-implantitis, the evidence is still limited to consider them a true risk factor for peri-implantitis. In conclusion, further evidences are required to a better understanding of the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Large population-based studies including concomitant analyses of implant- and patient-based factors are required to provide strong evidence of a possible association with peri-implantitis in a higher probability. The identification of these factors is essential for the establishment of strategies to prevent peri-implantitis.

Longitudinal study on risk indicators for peri-implantitis using survival-time analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the incidence of peri-implantitis and to identify potential associated risk indicators.

METHODS

This longitudinal study included 477 patients treated with 1420 implants. Medical and dental histories were evaluated in all patients. The location, size, connection type, surgical protocol, use of prosthesis splinting and fixation type were evaluated for each implant. In peri-implant evaluation, minimum keratinized tissue width around implants, peri-implant probing depths, peri-implant bleeding and peri-implant suppuration were assessed. Bone resorption around implants was evaluated with intraoral radiographs at baseline and at follow-up examinations. The study endpoint was peri-implantitis, which was defined as the presence of bleeding on probing and/or suppuration with bone resorption >1mm, in accordance with previous studies. Data were analyzed with mixed-effects Cox models.

RESULTS

Peri-implantitis occurred in 15.3% of patients and 9.2% of implants. The overall 5- and 10-year cumulative implant survival rates were 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-0.96) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.8-0.87), respectively. Age (hazard ratio [HR]=0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98, p<0.01), plaque control record >20% (HR=2.61, 95% CI: 1.02-6.67, p=0.04), maxillary placement (HR=1.90, 95% CI: 1.11-3.23, p=0.02) and number of occlusal supports (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.77-0.99, p=0.03) were significantly correlated with peri-implantitis development.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this longitudinal study on risk indicators for peri-implantitis, age, inadequate plaque control, insertion in the maxilla and less occlusal support of natural teeth correlated with peri-implantitis development.

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri-implantitis: A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.

Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

There is currently no consensus regarding the survival rate of osseointegrated implants in patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the survival rate of implants in such patients. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases were used to identify articles published up to September 2016. The systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA/PICO requirements and the risk of bias was assessed (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council scale). The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analyzed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifteen studies involving 8859 patients and 29,798 implants were included. The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93-2.08; P=0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50-1.89; P=0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18mm, 95% CI 0.05-0.30, P=0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group. Randomized and controlled clinical studies should be conducted to analyze possible biases.

Effect of history of periodontitis on implant success: meta-analysis and systematic review

PURPOSE

To determine if there is a relationship between history of periodontitis and dental implant success (used marginal bone loss [MBL] as the assessment criteria) and survival rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed search was performed in the period between 2002 and 2012. Studies qualified for the inclusion should have ≥5 years followed-up and reported the incidence of peri-implantitis and/or implant survival and/or MBL in patients with and without a history of periodontitis. A meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model on the selected qualified articles.

RESULTS

All the 14 studies showed better implant survival rates for non-periodontitis patients' group. Six of 10 studies reported statistically significantly higher MBL and prevalence of peri-implantitis among periodontitis patients. Our meta-analysis did not find implant survival rates to be significantly lower among periodontitis patients (P = 0.99) but revealed a history of periodontitis to be significantly related to the higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference, in terms of implant survival rate, between periodontitis and non-periodontitis patients. However, patients with history of periodontitis had lower implant success rate (more MBL and incidence of peri-implantitis) when compared with non-periodontitis patients.

The association between shallow vestibular depth and peri-implant parameters: a retrospective 6 years longitudinal study

AIM

The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the association between shallow vestibular depth (VD) and peri-implant parameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Peri-implant parameters were evaluated in 61 periodontal patients under regular supportive periodontal therapy. Clinical parameters included gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), peri-implant pocket depths (PPD), mucosal recession (MR), relative attachment level (RAL), width and thickness of keratinized mucosa (KMW, KMT) and VD. Radiographic bone level (RBL) was measured on peri-apical radiographs.

RESULTS

Sites with shallow VD (≤ 4 mm) were associated with higher MR (0.91 mm versus 0.47 mm, p ≤ 0.009), higher RAL (4.23 mm versus 3.59 mm, p ≤ 0.0001) and higher RBL (2.18 mm versus 1.7 mm, p = 0.05) when compared with adequate vestibular depth sites (VD > 4 mm). Moreover, sites with shallow VD presented lower KMW compared with sites with adequate VD (1.24 mm versus 2.38 mm, respectively, p ≤ 0.0001). Slightly greater BOP, and GI were recorded for the shallow VD compared with adequate sites. According to multivariate analysis, factors that could predict RAL included: VD, GI, age, supporting periodontal therapy, implant type and design.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on this study, inadequate vestibular depth around dental implants may be associated with increased peri-implant bone loss and mucosal recession. Further prospective and intervention studies will be required to fully understand this phenomenon.

A Classification Proposal for Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis: A Critical Update

Definitions of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis vary in the literature, and no clear criteria have been established for the diagnosis and treatment of such disorders. This study proposes a classification for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis based on the severity of the disease, using a combination of peri-implant clinical and radiological parameters to classify severity into several stages (Stage 0A and 0B = peri-implant mucositis, and Stage I to IV = periimplantitis). Following a review of the literature on the subject and justification of the proposed peri-implant disease classification, the latter aims to facilitate professional communication and data collection for research and community health studies.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a 5-year follow-up

AIM

To compare two regenerative surgical treatments for peri-implantitis over 5 years.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Twenty-five individuals with peri-implantitis remained at study endpoint. They were treated with a bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (13 individuals with 23 implants) [Group 1], or with bone substitute alone (12 individuals with 22 implants) [Group 2]. All study individuals were kept on a strict maintenance programme every third month.

RESULTS

Five-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements in both groups. No implants were lost due to progression of peri-implantitis. Probing depths were reduced by 3.0 ± 2.4 mm in Group 1, and 3.3 ± 2.09 mm in Group 2 (NS). In both groups, radiographic evidence of bone gain was significant (p < 0.001). At year 5, the average defect fill was 1.3 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) in Group 1 and 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.2 mm) in Group 2 (mean diff; 0.4 95% CI -0.3, 1.2, p = 0.24). Bleeding on probing decreased in both groups. Baseline and year 5 plaque scores did not differ between groups and was reduced from 50% to 15%.

CONCLUSION

Both procedures resulted in stable conditions. Additional use of a membrane does not improve the outcome.

Antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an adjunct method in peri-implant biofilm control

Great possibilities for oral rehabilitation emerged as a result of scientific consolidation, as well as a large number of dental implant applications. Along with implants appeared diseases such as mucositis and peri-implantitis, requiring management through several strategies applied at different stages. Biofilm accumulation is associated with clinical signs manifest by both tooth and implant inflammation. With this in mind, regular and complete biofilm elimination becomes essential for disease prevention and host protection. Chemical control of biofilms, as an adjuvant to mechanical oral hygiene, is fully justified by its simplicity and efficacy proven by studies based on clinical evidence. The purpose of this review was to present a consensus regarding the importance of antimicrobial mouthrinse use as an auxiliary method in chemical peri-implant biofilm control. The active ingredients of the several available mouthrinses include bis-biguanide, essential oils, phenols, quaternary ammonium compounds, oxygenating compounds, chlorine derivatives, plant extracts, fluorides, antibiotics and antimicrobial agent combinations. It was concluded that there is strong clinical evidence that at least two mouthrinses have scientifically proven efficacy against different oral biofilms, i.e., chlorhexidine digluconate and essential oils; however, 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate presents a number of unwanted side effects and should be prescribed with caution. Chemical agents seem beneficial in controlling peri-implant inflammation, although they require further investigation. We recommend a scientifically proven antiseptic, with significant short and long term efficacy and with no unwanted side effects, for the prevention and/or treatment of peri-implant disease.

Associations of clinical characteristics and interval between maintenance visits with peri-implant pathology

We investigated the effects of clinical characteristics and the interval between maintenance visits on incidence of peri-implant pathology in a sample of 1,350 patients treated with dental implants (270 cases of peri-implant pathology and 1,080 healthy controls). The chi-square test was used to evaluate differences between cases and controls in the presence of dental plaque, bleeding, peri-implant pockets >4 mm, bone level, and interval between maintenance visits (significance level, 5%). Crude odds ratios (ORs) and attributable fractions were calculated for variables that significantly differed between cases and controls. The variables identified as risk indicators were dental plaque (P < 0.001; OR = 5.2), bleeding (P < 0.001; OR = 5.0), peri-implant pockets >4 mm (P < 0.001; OR = 17.2), bone level (P < 0.001; middle third, OR = 8.4; apical third, OR = 8.6), and interval between maintenance visits (P < 0.001; 1-3 months, OR = 2.9; 3-5 months, OR = 2.1). Attributable fractions revealed a potential reduction in peri-implant pathology of 53-94% after removing exposures to dental plaque (81%), bleeding (80%), peri-implant pockets >4 mm (94%), bone level (88%), and interval between maintenance visits (53-66%). Selected clinical characteristics and the interval between maintenance visits were significantly associated with the incidence of peri-implant pathology.

Periodontitis, implant loss and peri-implantitis. A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the role of periodontal disease as a risk factor for implant loss, peri-implantitis and implant-bone loss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six electronic database and a manual search resulted in 7391 unique publications; after selection only 16 studies were included in systematic review. Dichotomous data were expressed as risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), while continuous data were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD). Due to the expected inter-study heterogeneity, a random effect model was used for both type of data. The pooled effect was considered significant for a P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis revealed that an higher and significant risk for implant loss was present in patients affected by PD (RR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.31-2.17, P < 0.0001). A higher and significant IBL was present in patients with periodontal disease, when compared with patients periodontally healthy (SMD: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.58, P = 0.0002). Patients periodontally compromised showed an increased risk of PI, when compared with patients without periodontitis (RR: 2.17, 95% CI: 1.51-3.12, P < 0.0001) No evidence of significant heterogeneity was detected for the three outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Strong evidence suggests that periodontitis is a risk factor for implant loss; moderate evidence revealed that periodontitis is a risk factor for peri-implantitis and that patients with periodontitis have higher implant-bone loss.

The epidemiology of peri-implantitis

AIM

To review the literature on the prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Out of 322 potentially relevant publications we identified 29 articles concerning 23 studies, with information on the presence of signs of peri-implantitis in populations of at least 20 cases.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

All studies provided data from convenience samples, typically from patients who were treated in a clinical center during a certain period, and most data were cross-sectional or collected retrospectively. Based on the reviewed papers one may state that the prevalence of peri-implantitis seems to be in the order of 10% implants and 20% patients during 5-10 years after implant placement but the individual reported figures are rather variable, not easily comparable and not suitable for meta-analysis. Factors that should be considered to affect prevalence figures are the disease definition, the differential diagnosis, the chosen thresholds for probing depths and bone loss, differences in treatment methods and aftercare of patients, and dissimilarities in the composition of study populations. Smoking and a history of periodontitis have been associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis.

Tobacco consumption induces alveolar crest height loss independently of mandibular bone mass and bone density

AIM

To investigate the relationship of tobacco consumption with alveolar crest height (ACH) loss and mandibular bone mass estimated by digital panoramic radiography and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied 315 patients (43.2% [n = 136] men and 56.8% [n = 179] women) with mean age of 36.6 ± 5.3 (range 21-30 years (16.2%), range 31-46 years (83.8%); 9% (n = 71) were smokers (>10 cig./day). A mean of 13.0 ± 2.0 mandibular teeth were present: 37.5% of patients had 6-12 teeth and 62.5% 13-16 teeth. We analyzed 315 digital panoramic radiographs (2D) and calculated the ACH, mandibular cortical width, and basal and alveolar bone gray level values. ACH and bone density were also measured on CBCT (3D) in the 110 patients scheduled for implantation.

RESULTS

In the univariate analysis, ACH loss was greater in older patients (P = 0.012) and in those with fewer mandibular teeth (P < 0.001) and showed a relationship with tobacco consumption that was close to significant (P = 0.079). In the multivariate analysis, the number of mandibular teeth (P < 0.001) and tobacco consumption (P = 0.048) were significantly associated with ACH. Alveolar and basal bone densities were associated, respectively, with number of mandibular teeth (P = 0.012) and cortical width (P = 0.030).

CONCLUSION

In a Caucasian population aged 21-46 years, tobacco consumption was significantly associated with ACH loss. However, ACH loss showed no significant relationship with mandibular bone mass estimated either as mandibular cortical width index or bone density on digital panoramic radiographs or as bone density on CBCT. ACH loss was a local event independent of mandibular bone mass status.

Epithelial integrins with special reference to oral epithelia

Adhesion of epithelium to the extracellular matrix is crucial for the maintenance of systemic and oral health. In the oral cavity, teeth or artificial dental implants penetrate the soft tissue of the gingiva. In this interface, gingival soft tissue needs to be well attached via the epithelial seal to the tooth or implant surface to maintain health. After injury or wounding, epithelial tissue rapidly migrates to form the initial epithelial cover to restore the barrier against infection. These events are crucially dependent on deposition of extracellular matrix and proper activation and function of integrin receptors in the epithelial cells. Recent experimental evidence suggests that epithelial integrins also participate in the regulation of periodontal inflammation. In this review, we will discuss the structure and function of epithelial integrins and their extracellular ligands and elaborate on their potential role in disease and repair processes in the oral cavity.

A critical review of diabetes, glycemic control, and dental implant therapy

OBJECTIVES

To systematically examine the evidence guiding the use of implant therapy relative to glycemic control for patients with diabetes and to consider the potential for both implant therapy to support diabetes management and hyperglycemia to compromise implant integration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic approach was used to identify and review clinical investigations directly assessing implant survival or failure for patients with diabetes. A MEDLINE (PubMED) database search identified potential articles for inclusion using the search strategy: (dental implants OR oral implants) AND (diabetes OR diabetic). Inclusion in this review required longitudinal assessments including at least 10 patients, with included articles assessed relative to documentation of glycemic status for patients.

RESULTS

Although the initial search identified 129 publications, this was reduced to 16, for inclusion. Reported implant failure rates for diabetic patients ranged from 0% to 14.3%. The identification and reporting of glycemic control was insufficient or lacking in 13 of the 16 studies with 11 of these enrolling only patients deemed as having acceptable glycemic control, limiting interpretation of findings relative to glycemic control. Three of the 16 studies having interpretable information on glycemic control failed to demonstrate a significant relationship between glycemic control and implant failure, with failure rates ranging from 0% to 2.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical evidence is lacking for the association of glycemic control with implant failure while support is emerging for implant therapy in diabetes patients with appropriate accommodations for delays in implant integration based on glycemic control. The role for implants to improve oral function in diabetes management and the effects of hyperglycemia on implant integration remain to be determined.