Simplified nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using chlorhexidine and minocycline hydrochloride

Management of peri-implantitis using local drug delivery among Indian patients

It is of interest to compare 0.2% chlorhexidine gel, 0.2% chlorhexidine chip, minocycline microspheres and slow-release doxycycline gel and tetracycline fibers as drug delivery systems in the management of peri-implantitis. The study comprised of 105 Indian participants who had a minimum of one dental implant with a probing depth of 4 mm, along with exudate and/or bleeding upon probing along with the presence of potentially harmful germs. The use of minocycline microspheres and 0.2% chlorhexidine gel resulted in significant improvements in probing depths at 1 month, 3 months and 6 months and all treatments showed decline in the indicator bacteria. Thus, minocycline microspheres and 0.2% chlorhexidine gel is useful as an adjuvant for mechanical debridement in management of peri-implantitis.

Comparison of Prophylactic Effects between Localized Biomimetic Minocycline and Systematic Amoxicillin on Implants Placed Immediately in Infected Sockets

This study evaluated the prophylactic effect of localized biomimetic minocycline and systemic amoxicillin on immediate implant placement at infected extraction sites. Twelve mongrels with six implants each were randomly assigned to five groups: uninfected negative control (Group N); infected with oral complex bacteria (Group P); infected and treated with amoxicillin one hour before implant placement (Group A); infected and treated with minocycline during implant placement (Group B); and infected and treated with amoxicillin one hour before implant placement and with minocycline during implant placement (Group C). Radiographic bone level, gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), papillary bleeding index (PBI), and removal torque (RT) were recorded. There was no significant difference between Groups A, B, and C for bone loss. Group A showed the highest RT, the lowest PBI, and significantly lower GI and PD values than Group P. Group B exhibited significantly higher RT value than Group N and significantly smaller PD value than Group P at 6 w postoperatively. Localized minocycline could improve implant success by reducing bone loss and increasing RT and systemic amoxicillin could maintain the stability of the peri-implant soft tissue. However, combined use of these two antibiotics did not augment the prophylactic effect.

Calcium phosphate cement with minocycline hydrochloride-loaded gelatine microspheres for peri-implantitis treatment

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to fabricate an antibacterial calcium phosphate cement (CPC) with minocycline hydrochloride (MINO)-loaded gelatine microspheres (GMs) as a local drug delivery system for the treatment of peri‑implantitis.

METHODS

CPC/GMs(MINO), incorporating MINO-loaded GMs into CPC, was developed and characterised using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), and drug release profiling. The antibacterial activity against Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum was evaluated. Bone mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) were cultured in the extracts of the developed cements to evaluate osteoinductivity in vitro. Furthermore, a rabbit femoral model was established to evaluate osteogenic ability in vivo.

RESULTS

SEM and XRD confirmed the porous structure and chemical stability of CPC/GMs(MINO). The release profile showed a sustained release of MINO from CPC/GMs(MINO), reaching an equilibrium state on the 14th day with a cumulative release ratio of approximately 84%. For antibacterial assays, the inhibition zone of CPC/GMs(MINO) was 3.67 ± 0.31 cm for P. gingivalis and 7.47 ± 0.50 cm for F. nucleatum. Most bacteria seeded on CPC/GMs(MINO) died after 24 h of culture. In addition, CPC/GMs(MINO) significantly enhanced alkaline phosphatase activity, osteogenic gene expression, and BMSC mineralisation compared with CPC/GMs and the control group (P < 0.05). The in vivo results showed that CPC/GMs(MINO) possessed a higher quality and quantity of bone formation and maturation than CPC/GMs and CPC.

CONCLUSIONS

CPC/GMs(MINO) showed excellent antibacterial activity against pathogens associated with peri‑implantitis and demonstrated good osteoinductivity and osteogenic ability.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Peri-implantitis is among the most common and challenging biological complications associated with dental implants. In this study, MINO-loaded GMs were incorporated into CPC, which endowed the composite cement with excellent antibacterial and osteogenic abilities, demonstrating its potential as a bone graft substitute for treating peri‑implantitis.

Non-Surgical Therapy and Oral Microbiota Features in Peri-Implant Complications: A Brief Narrative Review

The therapeutic discretion in cases of peri-implantitis should take into account the limits and advantages of specific therapeutic itineraries tailored according to each clinical case and each individual patient. This type of oral pathology emphasizes the complex classification and diagnostic issues coupled with the need for targeted treatments, in light of the oral peri-implant microbiota changes. This review highlights the current indications for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, describing the specific therapeutic efficacy of different approaches and discussing the more appropriate application of single non-invasive therapies The non-surgical treatment choice with antiseptics or antibiotics (single or combined, local, or systemic) for short courses should be considered on a case-by-case basis to minimize the incidence of side effects and concomitantly avoid disease progression.

Network pharmacology combined with GEO database identifying the mechanisms and molecular targets of Polygoni Cuspidati Rhizoma on Peri-implants

Peri-implants is a chronic disease leads to the bone resorption and loss of implants. Polygoni Cuspidati Rhizoma (PCRER), a traditional Chinese herbal has been used to treat diseases of bone metabolism. However, its mechanism of anti-bone absorption still remains unknown. We aimed to identify its molecular target and the mechanism involved in PCRER potential treatment theory to Peri-implants by network pharmacology. The active ingredients of PCRER and potential disease-related targets were retrieved from TCMSP, Swiss Target Prediction, SEA databases and then combined with the Peri-implants disease differential genes obtained in the GEO microarray database. The crossed genes were used to protein–protein interaction (PPI) construction and Gene Ontology (GO) and KEGG enrichment analysis. Using STRING database and Cytoscape plug-in to build protein interaction network and screen the hub genes and verified through molecular docking by AutoDock vina software. A total of 13 active compounds and 90 cross targets of PCRER were selected for analysis. The GO and KEGG enrichment analysis indicated that the anti-Peri-implants targets of PCRER mainly play a role in the response in IL-17 signaling, Calcium signaling pathway, Toll-like receptor signaling pathway, TNF signaling pathway among others. And CytoHubba screened ten hub genes (MMP9, IL6, MPO, IL1B, SELL, IFNG, CXCL8, CXCL2, PTPRC, PECAM1). Finally, the molecular docking results indicated the good binding ability with active compounds and hub genes. PCRER’s core components are expected to be effective drugs to treat Peri-implants by anti-inflammation, promotes bone metabolism. Our study provides new thoughts into the development of natural medicine for the prevention and treatment of Peri-implants.

Local/Topical Antibiotics for Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified (n = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.

Methods of Topical Administration of Drugs and Biological Active Substances for Dental Implants-A Narrative Review

Dental implants are, nowadays, established surgical devices for the restoration of lost teeth. Considered as an alternative for traditional prosthetic appliances, dental implants surpass them in reliability and patient feedback. Local drug delivery around the implants promotes osseointegration and reduces peri-implantitis. However, there are currently no methods of a multiple, precise topical administration of drugs to the implant area. Engineering coatings on the implants, drug application on carriers during implantation, or gingival pockets do not meet all requirements of dental surgeons. Therefore, there is a need to create porous implants and other medical devices that will allow a multiple drug delivery at a controlled dose and release profile without traumatic treatment. Due to the growing demand for the use of biologically active agents to support dental implant treatment at its various stages (implant placement, long-term use of dental superstructures, treatment of the peri-implant conditions) and due to the proven effectiveness of the topical application of pharmacological biologically active agents to the implant area, the authors would like to present a review and show the methods and devices that can be used by clinicians for local drug administration to facilitate dental implant treatment. Our review concludes that there is a need for research in the field of inventions such as new medical devices or implants with gradient solid-porous structures. These devices, in the future, will enable to perform repeatable, controllable, atraumatic, and repeatable injections of active factors that may affect the improvement of osteointegration and the longer survival of implants, as well as the treatment of peri-implantitis.

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.

Repeated delivery of chlorhexidine chips for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is a challenging condition to manage and is frequently treated using non-surgical debridement. The local delivery of antimicrobial agents has demonstrated benefit in mild to moderate cases of peri-implantitis. This study compared the safety and efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg chip (CHX chips) as an adjunctive treatment to subgingival debridement in patients afflicted with peri-implantitis.

METHODS

A multicenter, randomized, single-blind, two-arm, parallel Phase-3 study was conducted. Peri-implantitis patients with implant pocket depths (IPD) of 5-8 mm underwent subgingival implant surface debridement followed by repeated bi-weekly supragingival plaque removal and chlorhexidine chips application (ChxC group) for 12 weeks, or similar therapy but without application of ChxC (control group). All patients were followed for 24 weeks. Plaque and gingival indices were measured at every visit whereas IPD, recession, and bleeding on probing were assessed at 8, 12, 16, 24 week.

RESULTS

A total of 290 patients were included: 146 in the ChxC group and 144 in the control. At 24 weeks, a significant reduction in IPD (P = 0.01) was measured in the ChxC group (1.76 ± 1.13 mm) compared with the control group (1.54 ± 1.13 mm). IPD reduction of ≥2 mm was found in 59% and 47.2% of the implants in the ChxC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.03). Changes in gingival recession (0.29 ± 0.68 mm versus 0.15 ± 0.55 mm, P = 0.015) and relative attachment gain (1.47 ± 1.32 mm and 1.39 ± 1.27 mm, P = 0.0017) were significantly larger in the ChxC group. Patients in the ChxC group that were < 65 years exhibited significantly better responses (P < 0.02); likewise, non-smokers had similarly better response (P < 0.02). Both protocols were well tolerated, and no severe treatment-related adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with peri-implantitis that were treated with an intensive treatment protocol of bi-weekly supragingival plaque removal and local application of chlorhexidine chips had greater mean IPD reduction and greater percentile of sites with IPD reduction of ≥2 mm as compared with bi-weekly supra-gingival plaque removal.

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Despite the success rates of dental implants, peri-implantitis presents as the most common complication in implant dentistry. This review discusses various factors associated with peri-implantitis and various available treatments, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Relevant articles on peri-implantitis published in English were reviewed from August 2010 to April 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. The identified risk indicators of peri-implant diseases are plaque, smoking, history of periodontitis, surface roughness, residual cement, emergence angle >30 degrees, radiation therapy, keratinized tissue width, and function time of the implant, sex, and diabetes. Peri-implantitis treatments can be divided into nonsurgical (mechanical, antiseptic, and antibiotics), surface decontamination (chemical and laser), and surgical (air powder abrasive, resective, and regenerative). However, mechanical debridement alone may fail to eliminate the causative bacteria, and this treatment should be combined with other treatments (antiseptics and surgical treatment). Surface decontamination using chemical agents may be used as an adjuvant treatment; however, the definitive clinical benefit is yet not proven. Laser treatment may result in a short-term decrease in periodontal pocket depth, while air powder abrasive is effective in cleaning a previously contaminated implant surface. Surgical elimination of a pocket, bone recontouring and plaque control are also effective for treating peri-implantitis. The current evidence indicates that regenerative approaches to treat peri-implant defects are unpredictable.