Metabolic Conditions and Peri-Implantitis

Dental Implant Placement in Medically Compromised Patients: A Literature Review

As a discipline of dentistry, oral implantology deals with the diagnosis, design, insertion, restoration, and/or management of alloplastic or autogenous oral structures for the purpose of regaining contour, function, aesthetics, and speech in a partially or completely edentulous patient. The present review aims to provide the currently available knowledge about the impact of certain systemic disorders and the usage of some medications on the survival rate of dental implant therapy and to highlight the importance of patient management under these conditions. Diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiovascular diseases, and the intake of some medications can increase the risk of the failure of a dental implant. Even though there are relatively few medical contraindications to dental implant treatment, certain conditions may increase the risk of failure or complications.

Management of Advanced Peri-Implantitis by Guided Bone Regeneration in Combination with Trabecular Metal Fixtures, Two Months after Removal of the Failed Implants: Two-Year Results of a Single-Cohort Clinical Study

Background: Implant replacement is among the treatment options for severe peri-implantitis. The aim of this single-cohort study was to evaluate the feasibility of replacing compromised implants affected by advanced peri-implantitis with new implants with a porous trabecular metal (TM) structure. Materials and Methods: Patients with one or more implants in the posterior region showing a defect depth >50% of implant length, measured from the residual crest, were consecutively included. Two months after implant removal, patients received a TM implant combined with a xenograft and a resorbable membrane. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was measured at placement and re-assessed five months later (at uncovering), then after 6, 12, and 24 months of function. Marginal bone loss was radiographically evaluated. Results: Twenty consecutive cases were included. One patient dropped out due to COVID-19 infection, and nineteen cases were evaluated up to 24 months. At placement, the mean ISQ was 53.08 ± 13.65 (standard deviation), which increased significantly to 69.74 ± 9.01 after five months of healing (p < 0.001) and to 78.00 ± 7.29 after six months of loading (p < 0.001). Thereafter, the ISQ remained stable for up to 24 months (80.55 ± 4.73). All implants successfully osseointegrated and were restored as planned. After two years, the average marginal bone level change was -0.41 ± 0.38 mm (95% confidence interval -0.60, -0.21), which was limited yet significantly different from the baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The treatment of advanced peri-implant defects using TM implants inserted two months after explantation in combination with guided bone regeneration may achieve successful outcomes up to two years follow-up, even in the presence of low primary stability.