Surgical therapy of peri-implant disease: a 3-year follow-up study of cases treated with 3 different techniques of bone regeneration

Peri-implantitis induction and resolution around zirconia versus titanium implants

BACKGROUND

This study compared titanium and zirconia implant ligature-induced peri-implant defect progression and response to regenerative surgical intervention.

METHODS

Eight tissue-level endosseous implants were placed in 6 mixed-breed foxhounds, with 2 zirconia and 2 titanium alternating in each hemimandible. Cotton ligatures were placed subgingivally for 16 weeks followed by 8 weeks of spontaneous progression. Standardized radiographs were captured every 2 weeks to evaluate the rate of bone loss. Regenerative surgery was performed utilizing water-jet decontamination, enamel matrix derivative, and locally harvested autogenous bone. After 16 weeks of healing, final radiographic bone levels as well as probing depths, recession, and clinical attachment levels were assessed.

RESULTS

All 48 implants integrated successfully. The final average post-ligature radiographic defects were 2.88 and 3.05 mm for titanium and zirconia implants, respectively. There was no significant difference between materials in the rate of radiographic bone loss (p = 0.09). Following regenerative surgery, the total average amount of radiographic bone gain was 1.41 and 1.20 mm for titanium and zirconia, respectively. The percentage of defect fill was 51.56% and 37.98% (p = 0.03) for titanium and zirconia, respectively. Inter-group differences were minimal for clinical parameters at the time of sacrifice including periodontal pocket depths (p = 0.81), recession (p = 0.98), or clinical attachment levels (p = 0.51).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was found in the rate of peri-implant defect development between titanium and zirconia implants. Both materials gained significant radiographic bone following regenerative surgery with significantly greater defect percentage fill in titanium implants. The final clinical parameters were similar in both groups.

Impact of surface chemical treatment in surgical regenerative treatment of ligature-induced peri-implantitis: A canine study

BACKGROUND

Implant surface decontamination is a critical step in peri-implantitis treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the effect chemotherapeutic agents have on reosseointegration after treatment on ligature-inducted peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Six male canines had 36 implants placed and ligatures were placed around them for 28 weeks to establish peri-implantitis. The peri-implant defects were randomly treated by 1 of 3 methods: 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX test group), 1.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl test group), or saline (Control group). Sites treated with NaOCl and CHX were grafted with autogenous bone, and all sites then either received a collagen membrane or not. Histology sections were obtained at 6 months postsurgery to assess percentage of reosseointegration.

RESULTS

Thirty-five implants were analyzed (CHX: 13; NaOCl: 14; Control:8). NaOCl-treated sites demonstrated reosseointegration with direct bone-to-implant-contact on the previously contaminated surfaces (42% mean reosseointegration), which was significantly higher than Controls (p < 0.05). Correspondingly, clinical improvement was noted with a significant reduction in probing depth from 5.50 ± 1.24 mm at baseline to 4.46 ± 1.70 mm at 6-months postsurgery (p = 0.006). CHX-treated sites demonstrated a nonsignificant reosseointegration of 26% (p > 0.05); however, in the majority of cases, the new bone growth was at a distance from the implant surface without contact. Probing depths did not improve in the CHX group. The use of membrane did not influence reosseointegration or probing depths (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Titanium implants with peri-implantitis have the capacity to reosseointegrate following regenerative surgery. However, treatment response is contingent upon the chemotherapeutic agent selection. Additional chemical treatment with 1.5% NaOCl lead to the most favorable results in terms of changes in defect depth and percentage of reosseointegration as compared to CHX, which may hinder reosseointegration.

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.

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

Objectives

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

Methods

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

Main results

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

Conclusion

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

Supportive care for the prevention of disease recurrence/progression following peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of supportive care provision, frequency and protocol in patients treated for peri-implantitis, as reported in prospective and retrospective studies of at least 3-years duration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of three electronic databases was undertaken up to 21 July 2022 and supplemented by hand-search to identify studies that included participants treated for peri-implantitis and followed for at least 3 years. Owing to high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not appropriate, and therefore, data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines for reporting were followed.

RESULTS

The search identified 2596 studies. Of 270 records selected during screening, 255 were excluded through independent review and 15 studies (10 prospective and 5 retrospective, with at least 20 patients) were retained for qualitative assessments. Study designs, population characteristics, supportive care protocols and reported outcomes varied markedly. Thirteen of the 15 studies had low risk of bias. Supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) following different surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols and with recall intervals varying between 2 months and annually resulted in peri-implant tissue stability (no disease recurrence or progression) ranging from 24.4% to 100% at patient level and from 28.3% to 100% at implant level. Sevenhundred and eighty-five patients with 790 implants were included in this review.

CONCLUSIONS

Provision of SPIC following peri-implantitis therapy may prevent disease recurrence or progression. Insufficient evidence is available to identify (i) a specific supportive care protocol for secondary prevention of peri-implantitis, (ii) the effect of adjunctive local antiseptic agents in the secondary prevention of peri-implantitis and (iii) the impact of frequency of supportive care measures. Prospective, randomised, controlled studies designed to evaluate supportive care protocols are needed in future.

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.

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The adjunctive effect of a resorbable membrane to a xenogeneic bone replacement graft in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To evaluate the potential adjunctive effect of a resorbable collagen membrane covering a xenogeneic bone replacement graft in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-three patients (43 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis associated with intra-bony defects were treated with a surgical reconstructive approach that included a xenogeneic bone substitute material. Additionally, resorbable collagen membranes were placed over the grafting material at sites randomly allocated to the test group; conversely, no membranes were placed in the control group. Clinical outcomes, namely probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BoP and SoP), marginal mucosal level (REC) and keratinized mucosa width (KMW), were recorded at baseline and 6 and 12 months after surgery. Radiographic marginal bone levels (MBLs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at baseline and 12 months. A composite outcome (success) was evaluated at 12 months, which included the absence of BoP/SoP, PPD ≤5 mm and reduction of buccal marginal mucosal level (buccal REC) of ≤1 mm.

RESULTS

At 12 months, no implants were lost and treatment success was observed at 36.8% and 45.0% of implants in the test and control groups, respectively (p = .61). Similarly, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of changes of PPD, BoP/SoP, KMW, MBL or buccal REC. Post-surgical complications were observed in the test group only (e.g., soft tissue dehiscence, exposure of particulate bone graft and/or resorbable membrane). Longer surgical times (~10 min; p < .05) and higher levels of self-reported pain at 2 weeks (p < .01) were observed in the test group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study failed to demonstrate the presence of added clinical or radiographic benefits of the use of a resorbable membrane to cover a bone substitute material within the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis associated with intra-bony defects.

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimal invasiveness in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis defects

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

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.

Surgical therapy of peri-implantitis

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Purpose

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

Material and methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Supplementary Information

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

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.

Management of extensive peri-implant defects with titanium meshes

PURPOSE

Peri-implantitis is a biofilm-induced pathological condition, and different approaches have been proposed to manage this condition. This study introduces a surgical technique in accordance with the concept of guided bone regeneration for implants with extensive peri-implant defects.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted on 7 patients with 11 implants (4 females and 3 males; 32 to 61 years). In this technique, we used a titanium mesh, a combination of autogenous bone, allogenic graft material, and acellular dermal matrix to reconstruct the peri-implant defects. All implants were placed submerged, and the second-stage surgery was conducted after 8 months. Soft tissue augmentation and vestibuloplasty were performed in the second-stage surgery, if required.

RESULTS

The mean function time of implants was 60.5 ± 29.4 months. The mean baseline probing pocket depth was 5.7 ± 1.4 mm, and soft tissue recession was observed at two sites (18%). The mean recession and keratinized tissue width (KTW) values were 0.4 ± 0.8 mm and 3 ± 1.6 mm, respectively. The mean marginal bone loss and bone gain were 4.4 ± 1.2 mm and 2.9 ± 0.9 mm, respectively, which showed a significant improvement.

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary evaluations showed favorable results in terms of radiographic defect fill and soft tissue condition. It appears that this technique may lead to promising outcomes in cautiously selected patients seeking to retain their failing implants. However, long-term results following functional loading are required before recommending this technique for daily practice.

Treatment of Early Developed Peri-Implantitis in Fibula Graft Site

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

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

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

Influence of Removing or Leaving the Prosthesis after Regenerative Surgery in Peri-Implant Defects: Retrospective Study: 32 Clinical Cases with 2 to 8 Years of Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects.

METHODS

Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss^® (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason^®, Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2.

RESULTS

The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.

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

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

Nonsurgical Treatment of Periimplantitis

PURPOSE

Periimplantitis has become an emerging challenge faced by practicing dentists worldwide. When treating periimplantitis, we should attempt to manage this problem via nonsurgical therapies that include addressing all modifiable systemic risk factors and local contributing factors. Hence, the aim of this narrative review was to examine published studies on nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis and evaluate their effectiveness and limitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed database up to December 31, 2017. Current published clinical approaches focused on mechanical debridement, adjunctive antiseptic therapy, adjunctive antibiotic therapy, laser-assisted therapy, and combination approaches were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical therapy of periimplantitis may result in complete healing of the disease and the patient is then placed on a supportive maintenance program. If the disease is not resolved and surgical intervention is not an option, active nonsurgical retreatment may be considered. In many cases where disease is not resolved, surgical therapy or implant removal could be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis usually provides clinical improvements in reducing bleeding tendency and in some cases pocket reduction. Early diagnosis, detection, and intervention remain the key for managing periimplantitis.

Successful Management of Peri-Implantitis around Short and Ultrashort Single-Crown Implants: A Case Series with a 3-Year Follow-Up

Introduction and Aim

In case of peri-implantitis, resective surgery is contraindicated for short and ultrashort implants, limiting the treatment options to regenerative surgery or to implant removal. This retrospective case series presents the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a surgical regenerative procedure to treat peri-implantitis around short and ultrashort implants.

Materials and Methods

The study is a retrospective evaluation of patients suffering from peri-implantitis and those who underwent access flap surgery, concomitant chemical and mechanical decontamination of implant surface, and bone grafting using a self-hardening mixture of bone substitutes and biphasic calcium sulfate. No membranes were applied to cover the grafting material, and primary tension-free closure was achieved. The retrospective protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Sperimentation (CESC) of Verona and Rovigo, Italy (based in the University of Verona) (Prog. 1863CESC. Date of approval: 2018-07-04).

Results

15 patients (17 implants) have been diagnosed with peri-implantitis after a mean follow-up of 24 months after loading. Implant length was between 5 and 8 mm. 8 patients (10 implants) had a history of periodontitis. At baseline, the mean PD (probing pocket dept) at the deepest site was 8.12 mm, with an average mBI (modified bleeding index) of 2.35 and a mean BD (bone defect depth) of 3.04 mm. At the 3-year follow-up, the CSR was 100%, the mean mBI was 0.88 (average reduction: −1.47), the mean PD was 3.35 mm (mean PD reduction: 4.77 mm), and the mean bone defect was reduced by 1.74 mm, with a mean bone fill of 55%.

Conclusions

The results of the present case series suggest that if accurate surface decontamination is achieved, high survival rate and good clinical and radiographic results can be obtained after 3 years. However, only the histological examination could confirm the growth of new bone in direct contact with the implant surface or if the grafted material only fills the space left by the peri-implant defect.

Is Peri-Implantitis Curable?

Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are clinically associated with inflammation of soft tissue around implants; however, peri-implantitis is associated with radiographic bone loss. Recently a new classification scheme-peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant soft-tissue and hard-tissue deficiencies-was introduced. Although various clinical interventions to treat peri-implant diseases have been suggested, early diagnosis and treatment is the key to successful outcomes. Clinicians can select nonsurgical or surgical techniques according to the clinical parameters present, although surgical intervention seems to be more effective in treating peri-implantitis. The best approach to treat peri-implantitis remains controversial.

Stress distribution in mandibular donor site after harvesting bone grafts of various sizes from the ascending ramus of a dentate mandible by finite element analysis

PURPOSE

Harvesting bone from the ascending ramus of the mandible is a common procedure. However, mandibular fracture may occur after grafting bone blocks. This study aimed to investigate the resulting force distribution of stress and strain in the mandibular donor site after harvesting bone grafts of different sizes and various loadings.

METHODS

Finite element analysis was performed for virtual harvesting of bone blocks of nine different sizes between 15 × 20 and 25 × 30 mm and three different chewing loads (incisal, ipsilateral and contralateral). von Mises stress and first principal stress distributions were measured.

RESULTS

von Mises stress was distributed between 35.01 (10 × 15 mm graft, incisal load) and 333.25 MPa (30 × 20 mm graft ipsilateral load), whereas first principal stress distributions were between 48.27 (10 × 15 mm graft, incisal load) and 414.69 MPa (30 × 20 mm graft ipsilateral load). In general, the least stress was observed with incisal load followed by ipsilateral load and finally contralateral load. The critical value of 133 MPa was found after removing almost all grafts with a width of 20 or 30 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

Incisal loading led to less stress compared with contralateral and ipsilateral loads. Increasing graft size led to increasing weakness of the donor site. Graft width exerted a greater influence on stress development than its height.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Ipsilateral chewing and increasing width of the bone graft result in maximum stress in the mandibular donor side, and critical values regarding to the possibility of fractures are already to expect from a graft size of 20 × 15 mm.

Surface property alterations and osteoblast attachment to contaminated titanium surfaces after different surface treatments: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported a high prevalence of peri-implantitis. The etiology of peri-implantitis remains unclear and no available treatments result in total resolution of established peri-implantitis.

PURPOSE

To investigate the factors that interfere with osteoblast adhesion to contaminated titanium surfaces after different surface treatments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Grade 4 titanium discs were randomly divided into 5 groups and each group was divided into 2 subgroups, with one contaminated with Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A. actinomycetemcomitans), and the other contaminated with Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis). Group 1 did not receive bacterial inoculation or surface debridement and served as a control. Group 2 received A. actinomycetemcomitans or P. gingivalis inoculation, separately. Group 3 received bacterial inoculation and titanium curette debridement, followed by normal saline irrigation. Group 4 received bacterial inoculation, curette debridement, normal saline irrigation, and ultrasonication. Group 5 received bacterial inoculation, curette debridement, normal saline irrigation, and placement in 0.12% chlorhexidine. After various surface treatments, the surface roughness and hydrophilicity of the titanium surface were measured, the number of adhered osteoblast cells was calculated, and the amount of residual lipopolysaccharide (LPS) was quantified.

RESULTS

A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis biofilms noticeably reduced surface hydrophilicity. Groups 3-5 showed decreased hydrophilicity and fewer adhered osteoblast cells compared with the control group. Although ultrasonication was more effective in removing LPS than curette debridement and chlorhexidine, cell adhesion was not as high as with clean titanium discs.

CONCLUSIONS

The non-surgical treatment used in this study was not effective in removing LPS from titanium surfaces and increasing osteoblast adhesion. A more effective method to remove LPS completely is required to enhance the treatment outcome of peri-implantitis.

The effects of ozone therapy as an adjunct to the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis

PURPOSE

The decontamination procedure is a challenging aspect of surgical regenerative therapy (SRT) of peri-implantitis that affects its success. The purpose of the present study was to determine the impact of additional topical gaseous ozone therapy on the decontamination of implant surfaces in SRT of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

A total of 41 patients (22 males, 19 females; mean age, 53.55±8.98 years) with moderate or advanced peri-implantitis were randomly allocated to the test group (ozone group) with the use of sterile saline with additional ozone therapy or the control group with sterile saline alone for decontamination of the implant surfaces in SRT of peri-implantitis. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were evaluated over a period of 12 months.

RESULTS

At the 12-month follow-up, the plaque and gingival index values were significantly better in the ozone group (P<0.05). Probing depth decreased from 6.27±1.42 mm and 5.73±1.11 mm at baseline to 2.75±0.7 mm and 3.34±0.85 mm at the end of the 12-month observation period in the ozone and control groups, respectively. Similarly, the clinical attachment level values changed from 6.39±1.23 mm and 5.89±1.23 mm at baseline to 3.23±1.24 mm and 3.91±1.36 mm at the 12-month follow-up in the ozone and control groups, respectively. According to the radiographic evidence, the defect fill between baseline and 12 months postoperatively was 2.32±1.28 mm in the ozone group and 1.17±0.77 mm in the control group, which was a statistically significant between-group difference (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant surface decontamination with the additional use of ozone therapy in SRT of peri-implantitis showed clinically and radiographically significant. Trial registry at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03018795.

Can degradation products released from dental implants affect peri-implant tissues?

This study aimed to assess the literature available on the effects, on peri-implant tissues, of degradation products released from dental implants as a consequence of therapeutic treatment for peri-implantitis and/or of wear-corrosion of titanium. A literature review of the PubMed medline database was performed up to December 31, 2016. The following search terms were used: "titanium wear and dental implant"; "titanium corrosion and dental implant"; "bio-tribocorrosion"; "peri-implantitis"; "treatment of peri-implantitis"; "titanium particles release and dental implant"; and "titanium ion release and dental implant". The keywords were applied to the database in different combinations without limits of time period or type of work. In addition, the reference lists of relevant articles were searched for further studies. Seventy-nine relevant scientific articles on the topic were retrieved. The results showed that pro-inflammatory cytokines, infiltration of inflammatory response cells and activation of the osteoclasts activity are stimulated in peri-implant tissues in the presence of metal particles and ions. Moreover, degenerative changes were reported in macrophages and neutrophils that phagocytosed titanium microparticles, and mutations occurred in human cells cultured in medium containing titanium-based nanoparticles. Debris released from the degradation of dental implants has cytotoxic and genotoxic potential for peri-implant tissues. Thus, the amount and physicochemical properties of the degradation products determine the magnitude of the detrimental effect on peri-implant tissues.

Biofilm Analysis of Retrieved Dental Implants after Different Peri-Implantitis Treatments

The aim of the current study was to analyse the planktonic growth of Streptococcus mutans on the surfaces of three implants retrieved after three different peri-implantitis treatments. Three implants from a male patient with high levels of bone loss were treated by mechanical debridement, chemical decontamination, and implantoplasty. After 4 months of follow-up, the implants were removed. The growth and biofilm formation were measured by spectrophotometry (OD630 nm) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM), after 48 hours of incubation. Results showed an average of Streptococcus mutans planktonic growth over the implants of 0.21 nm (mechanical debridement), 0.16 nm (chemical decontamination), and 0.15 nm (implantoplasty). Data were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05 for chemical decontamination and implantoplasty). Implantoplasty and chemical decontamination showed the lowest levels of planktonic growth, indicating a possible influence of the modification procedures on the titanium surface on the initial biofilm attachment.

Peri-implantitis. Part 3: current modes of management

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition fuelled by the presence of bacteria on the implant surface. As such, in a similar manner to periodontal disease management, the removal of biofilm from the implant surface should result in regression of the disease process. The optimal manner with which this is achieved has yet to be realised. This may be unsurprising due to the relative surface complexity of the implant surface when compared to natural tooth root. Other management strategies include surface decontamination, the removal of implant threads known as implantoplasty, and in severe cases the need to explant. Favourable defects can be reconstructed utilising guided bone regeneration techniques. The current review appraises some of the techniques for the management of peri-implantitis.

Systemic antibiotics and the risk of superinfection in peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis has emerged in the last few years as a complication difficult to resolve. The etiopathogenesis consensus is mainly attributed to bacteria. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a PubMed/Medline literature search was performed using the US National Library of Medicine database up to 2015 to analyze available scientific data on the rationale and risk of superinfection associated to systemic antimicrobials in human peri-implant disease. A hand search was also conducted on relevant medical and microbiology journals. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was independently assessed for quality on the selected papers. Proposed combined therapies use broad-spectrum antibiotics to halt the disease progression. A major associated risk, particularly when prescribed empirically without microbiological follow-up, is the undetected development of superinfections and overgrowth of opportunistic pathogens difficult to eradicate. Peri-implant superinfections with opportunistic bacteria, yeast and viruses, are plausible risks associated to the use of systemic antibiotics in immunocompetent individuals. Lack of microbiological follow-up and antibiotic susceptibility testing may lead to ongoing microbial challenges that exacerbate the disease progression. The increased proliferation of antimicrobial resistance, modern implant surface topography and indiscriminative empiric antibiotic regimens may promote the escalation of peri-implant disease in years to come. A personalized 3-month supportive therapy may help prevent risks by sustaining a normal ecological balance, decreasing specific pathogen proportions and maintaining ideal plaque control.

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

In patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of nonsurgical (i.e. referring to peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) and surgical (i.e. referring to peri-implantitis) treatments with alternative or adjunctive measures on changing signs of inflammation compared with conventional nonsurgical (i.e. mechanical/ultrasonic debridement) and surgical (i.e. open flap debridement) treatments alone? After electronic database and hand search, a total of 40 publications (reporting on 32 studies) were finally considered for the qualitative and quantitative assessment. The weighted mean changes (WM)/ and WM differences (WMD) were estimated for bleeding on probing scores (BOP) and probing pocket depths (PD) (random effect model). Peri-implant mucositis: WMD in BOP and PD reductions amounted to -8.16 % [SE = 4.61] and -0.15 mm [SE = 0.13], not favouring adjunctive antiseptics/antibiotics (local and systemic) over control measures (p > 0.05). Peri-implantitis (nonsurgical): WMD in BOP scores amounted to -23.12 % [SE = 4.81] and -16.53 % [SE = 4.41], favouring alternative measures (glycine powder air polishing, Er:YAG laser) for plaque removal and adjunctive local antibiotics over control measures (p < 0.001), respectively. Peri-implantitis (surgical): WMD in BOP and PD reductions did not favour alternative over control measures for surface decontamination. WM reductions following open flap surgery (±resective therapy) and adjunctive augmentative therapy amounted to 34.81 and 50.73 % for BOP and 1.75 and 2.20 mm for PD, respectively. While mechanical debridement alone was found to be effective for the management of peri-implant mucositis, alternative/adjunctive measures may improve the efficacy over/of conventional nonsurgical treatments at peri-implantitis sites. Adjunctive resective and/or augmentative measures are promising; however, their beneficial effect on the clinical outcome of surgical treatments needs to be further investigated.