[Efficacy of combined application of glycine powder air-polishing in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases]

[Profiles and differences of submucosal microbial in peri-implantitis and health implants: A cross-sectional study]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the submucosal microbial profiles of peri-implantitis and healthy implants, and to explore bacteria that might be correlated with clinical parameters.

METHODS

In the present cross-sectional study, 49 patients were recruited. Each patient contributed with one implant, submucosal biofilms were collected from 20 healthy implants and 29 implants with peri-implantitis. DNA was extracted and bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (16S rRNA) genes were amplified. Submucosal biofilms were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing at Illumina MiSeq platform. Differences between the groups were determined by analyzing α diversity, microbial component and microbial structure. The potential correlation between the bacteria with pocket probing depth (PPD) of peri-implant calculated by Spearman correlation analysis.

RESULTS

The α diversity of submucosal microbial of health group was significantly lower than that in peri-implantitis group (Chao1 index: 236.85±66.13 vs. 150.54±57.43, P < 0.001; Shannon index: 3.42±0.48 vs. 3.02±0.65, P=0.032). Principal coordinated analysis showed that the submucosal microbial structure had significant difference between healthy and peri-implantitis groups [R²=0.243, P=0.001, analysis of similarities (ANOSIM)]. Compared with healthy implants, relative abundance of periodontal pathogens were higher in peri-implantitis, including members of the red complex (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola) and some members of orange complex (Precotella intermedia, Eubacterium nodatum, Parvimonas micra), as well as some new periodontal pathogens, such as Fillifactor alocis, Fretibacterium fastidiosum, Desulfobulbus sp._HMT_041, and Porphyromonas endodontalis. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the relative abundance of Treponema denticola (r=0.686, P < 0.001), Tannerella forsythia (r=0.675, P < 0.001), Fretibacterium sp. (r=0.671, P < 0.001), Desulfobulbus sp._HMT_041 (r=0.664, P < 0.001), Filifactor alocis (r=0.642, P < 0.001), Fretibacterium fastidiosum (r=0.604, P < 0.001), Porphyromonas gingivalis (r=0.597, P < 0.001), Porphyromonas endodontalis (r=0.573, P < 0.001) were positive correlated with PPD. While the relative abundance of Rothia aeria (r=-0.615, P < 0.001) showed negatively correlation with PPD.

CONCLUSION

Marked differences were observed in the microbial profiles of healthy implants and peri-implantitis. The members of red and orange complex as well as some new periodontal pathogens seem to play an important role in peri-implant disease. Compared with healthy implants, the submucosal microbial of peri-implantitis were characterized by high species richness and diversity.

Consensus Report of the Technical-Scientific Associations of Italian Dental Hygienists and the Academy of Advanced Technologies in Oral Hygiene Sciences on the Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Disease

BACKGROUND

The recent publication of the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant disease has given clear indications on the parameters to be taken into consideration to correctly diagnose the different phases of these diseases. To date, however, there are no equally clear indications on the treatments to be implemented to solve these diseases. The objective of this Consensus Report is to provide guidance for the non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. For the drafting of the consensus, the most recent scientific literature was analysed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A group of 15 expert Italian dental hygienists were selected by the Italian technical-scientific societies (AIDI, UNID and ATASIO) and, starting from the literature review, they formulated indications according to the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, a tool for rating the quality of evidence, used to draw up systematic reviews and clinical guidelines) on the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis and on management of the various implanting surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

in accordance with the international literature, non-surgical therapy alone can resolve peri-implant mucositis, but not peri-implantitis. Several adjunctive therapies have been considered and some appear to be helpful in managing inflammation.