Disease resolution following treatment of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review

The aim of this PRISMA-compliant systematic review was to analyze the evidence pertaining to disease resolution after treatment of peri-implant diseases (PROSPERO: CRD42022306999) with the following PICO question: what is the rate of disease resolution following non-surgical and surgical therapy for peri-implant diseases in adult human subjects? A literature search to identify studies that fulfilled a pre-established eligibility criteria was conducted. Data on primary therapeutic outcomes, including treatment success, rate of disease resolution and/or recurrence, as well as a variety of secondary outcomes was extracted and categorized. Fifty-five articles were included. Few studies investigated the efficacy of different non-surgical and surgical therapies to treat peri-implant diseases using a set of pre-defined criteria and with follow-up periods of at least one year. The definition of treatment success and outcomes of disease resolution differed considerably among the included studies. Treatment of peri-implant mucositis was most commonly reported to be successful in arresting disease progression for ≤60% of the cases, whereas most studies on peri-implantitis treatment reported disease resolution occurring in <50% of the fixtures. In conclusion, disease resolution is generally unpredictable and infrequently achieved after the treatment of peri-implant diseases. A great variety of definitions have been used to define treatment success. Notably, percentages of treatment success and disease resolution were generally underreported. The use of standardized parameters to evaluate disease resolution should be considered an integral component in future clinical studies.

Laser therapy for treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence review

BACKGROUND

Peri-implant diseases are prevalent, with numerous therapies studied in an attempt to combat this condition. The present review aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of laser therapy with non-surgical or surgical therapy in managing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

METHODS

An electronic search of three databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles published (in English) from January 1980 to June 2016 were performed. Human clinical trials of ≥ 10 patients with peri-implant diseases, treated with surgical or non-surgical approaches and laser therapy, and a follow-up period of ≥ 6 months, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to analyze weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval for the recorded variables according to PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was also performed for randomized controlled trials included.

RESULTS

From 22 articles selected, 11 were included in the meta-analyses. The outcomes of using lasers as a monotherapy could not be evaluated since no controlled studies were identified. Therefore, all reported results were the outcomes of applying lasers as an adjunct to surgical/non-surgical treatment. For the non-surgical approach, WMD of probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), marginal bone level (MBL) and recession (REC) was 0.15 mm (P = 0.50), -0.10 mm (P = 0.32), 21.08% (P = 0.02), -0.07 (P = 0.002), -0.22 mm (P = 0.04) and -0.11 mm (P = 0.34), respectively. For the surgical approach with a long-term follow up, WMD of PD, CAL, BOP, and PI was 0.45 mm (P = 0.11), 0.22 mm (P = 0.56), 7.26% (P = 0.76) and -0.09 (P = 0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows laser therapy in combination with surgical/non-surgical therapy provided minimal benefit in PD reduction, CAL gain, amount of REC improvement, and PI reduction in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Lasers when used as an adjunct to non-surgical therapy might result in more BOP reduction in the short term. However, current evidence allowed for analysis of only Er:YAG, CO₂ , and diode lasers. Studies on others failed to have controlled evidence supporting their evaluation.

The 2nd Baltic Osseointegration Academy and Lithuanian University of Health Sciences Consensus Conference 2019. Summary and Consensus Statements: Group II - Extraction Socket Preservation Methods and Dental Implant Placement Outcomes within Grafted Sockets

Introduction

The task of Group II was to review and update the existing data concerning extraction socket preservation with or without membranes and soft tissue influence on post-extraction alveolar ridge preservation; extraction socket preservation using different biomaterials as bone grafts, growth factors, and stem cells. Special interest was paid to the dental implant placement outcomes within grafted sockets.

Material and Methods

The main areas evaluated by this group were as follows: quantitative and qualitative assessment of the effect of different alveolar preservation techniques performed immediately after tooth extraction, with or without membranes and/or soft tissue grafting, and the use of different bone substitutes, stem cells or growth factors in the postextraction socket. Evaluation of the treatment outcomes of dental implants placed in the grafted sockets in terms of primary and secondary outcomes were assessed. The systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were registered in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. TThe literature in the corresponding areas of interest was screened and reported following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis) Statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Method of preparation of the systematic reviews, based on comprehensive search strategies, was discussed and standardized. The summary of the materials and methods employed by the authors in preparing the systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses is presented in the Preface chapter.

Results

The results and conclusions of the review process are presented in the respective papers. Three systematic reviews and one systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The group's general commentaries, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for research are presented in this article.

A randomized controlled trial to compare aesthetic outcomes of immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization

INTRODUCTION

There are mixed results regarding the aesthetic advantage of immediate provisionalization of dental implants. Therefore, this study aimed to compare facial mucosal level of single immediately placed implants with and without immediate provisionalization.

METHODS

Single implants were immediately placed to replace a hopeless maxillary anterior or premolar tooth in 40 subjects. Each implant was randomly assigned to receive a non-occluding temporary crown or a healing abutment after implant placement. At 4 months, these implants were permanently restored and followed up for 12 months. Clinical and radiographic parameters were measured and compared.

RESULTS

The implant survival rate at 12 months in the test and control group was 90% and 100%, respectively. Mid-facial mucosal marginal level and papilla height changes were minimal within groups, and no significant differences were found between the two groups. The amount of marginal bone remodelling was modest, with no significant difference between the two groups. Radiographic bone changes were not statistically different between the groups, except for the vertical crestal bone resorption.

CONCLUSION

Immediate implant placement with or without provisionalization can achieve stable vertical soft tissue level for 12 months as compared to pre-extraction level. However, immediate provisionalization was not able to improve the aesthetic outcome further.