Risk indicators for mucositis and peri-implantitis: results from a practice-based cross-sectional study

Purpose@#This practice-based cross-sectional study aimed to investigate whether common risk indicators for peri-implant diseases were associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients undergoing supportive implant therapy (SIT) at least 5 years after implant restoration. @*Methods@#Patients exclusively restored with a single implant type were included. Probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration, and radiographic bone loss (RBL) were assessed around implants. The case definitions were as follows: peri-implant mucositis: PPD ≥4 mm, BOP, no RBL; and peri-implantitis: PPD ≥5 mm, BOP, RBL ≥3.5 mm. Possible risk indicators were compared between patients with and without mucositis and peri-implantitis using the Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as well as a multiple logistic regression model for variables showing significance (P<0.05). @*Results@#Eighty-four patients with 169 implants (observational period: 5.8±0.86 years) were included. A patient-based prevalence of 52% for peri-implant mucositis and 18% for peri-implantitis was detected. The presence of 3 or more implants (odds ratio [OR], 4.43; 95 confidence interval [CI], 1.36–15.05; P=0.0136) was significantly associated with an increased risk for mucositis. Smoking was significantly associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 5.89; 95% CI, 1.27–24.58; P=0.0231), while the presence of keratinized mucosa around implants was associated with a lower risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01–0.25; P<0.001). @*Conclusions@#The number of implants should be considered in strategies to prevent mucositis. Furthermore, smoking and the absence of keratinized mucosa were the strongest risk indicators for peri-implantitis in patients undergoing SIT in the present study.

Association of chairside salivary aMMP-8 findings with periodontal risk assessment parameters in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate whether salivary findings of active matrix-metalloproteinase 8 (aMMP-8) chairside (point of care; POC) tests were associated with periodontal risk assessment parameters in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). METHODS: A total of 125 patients receiving regular SPT were included, and their records were examined. The following inclusion criteria were used: a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, at least 1 non-surgical periodontal treatment (scaling and root planning) with following regular SPT (minimum once a year), at least 6 remaining teeth, and clinical and aMMP-8 findings that were obtained at the same appointment. In addition to anamnestic factors (e.g., smoking and diabetes), oral hygiene indices (modified sulcus bleeding index [mSBI] and approximal plaque index), periodontal probing depth simultaneously with bleeding on probing, and dental findings (number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth) were recorded. Salivary aMMP-8 levels were tested using a commercial POC test system (Periomarker, Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany). Statistical analysis was performed using the t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, and χ2 test, as appropriate (P 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Salivary aMMP-8 chairside findings were not associated with common parameters used for periodontal risk assessment in patients receiving SPT. The diagnostic benefit of POC salivary aMMP-8 testing in risk assessment and maintenance interval adjustment during SPT remains unclear.

Clinical outcome of double crown-retained implant overdentures with zirconia primary crowns

PURPOSE: This retrospective study aims at the evaluation of implant-supported overdentures (IODs) supported by ceramo-galvanic double crowns (CGDCs: zirconia primary crowns + galvano-formed secondary crown). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a private practice, 14 patients were restored with 18 IODs (mandible: 11, maxilla: 7) retained by CGDCs on 4 - 8 implants and annually evaluated for technical and/or biological failures/complications. RESULTS: One of the 86 inserted implants failed during the healing period (cumulative survival rate (CSR) implants: 98.8%). During the prosthetic functional period (mean: 5.9 +/- 2.2 years), 1 implant demonstrated an abutment fracture (CSR-abutments: 98.2%), and one case of peri-implantitis was detected. All IODs remained in function (CSR-denture: 100%). A total of 15 technical complications required interventions to maintain function (technical complication rate: 0.178 treatments/patients/year). CONCLUSION: Considering the small sample size, the use of CGDCs for the attachment of IODs is possible without an increased risk of technical complications. However, for a final evaluation, results from a larger cohort are required.

Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: A retrospective evaluation after 5-19 years of clinical function

PURPOSE: This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss > or =3.5 mm) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken post-operative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS: The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION: Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7degrees; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: 4.8degrees; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: 4.8degrees) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7degrees) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation. CONCLUSION: No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.