Single-cell sequencing identifies inflammation-promoting fibroblast-neutrophil interaction in peri-implantitis.

AIM: To reveal the cellular composition and molecular environment of the periodontal and peri-implant inflammatory infiltrates through a single-cell sequencing technique, which may explain the pathological difference between these two diseases. A special focus was placed on the phenotypes and potential roles of neutrophils and fibroblasts in peri-implant/periodontal tissue immunity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-throughput single-cell transcriptomic profiling of peri-implant tissues from patients with peri-implantitis as well as periodontal tissues from patients with periodontitis and healthy donors was performed. Immunofluorescence analysis was carried out to further validate the identified cell subtypes and their involvement in peri-implantitis and periodontitis. RESULTS: Based on our single-cell resolution analysis, a quantified proportional increase of neutrophil (Neu) subtypes was shown in peri-implantitis. Among these, a predominance of Neutro_CXCR2 was revealed. We also found the involvement of inflammation-promoting fibroblasts as well as a predominance of CXCL8+ fibroblast-CXCR2+ neutrophil interaction in peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the predominance of CXCL8+ fibroblast-CXCR2+ neutrophil interaction might underline the enhanced host response in peri-implantitis compared with periodontitis. This information offers a molecular basis by which fibroblast and neutrophil subtypes might be diagnostically and therapeutically targeted in peri-implantitis.

Long-term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA).

AIM: To evaluate the long-term survival of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (Group L, M, and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis. RESULTS: A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3%, and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p < .05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p < .05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index, and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p < .01). No significant difference was found in MBL. CONCLUSION: Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

Clinical, radiographic and economic evaluation of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation in moderately atrophic maxillae: A 3-year randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To compare the 3-year clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes of short-6-mm implants and longer implants combined with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) in the posterior maxilla. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study enrolled 225 patients (225 implants with diameter of 4.1 mm and 4.8 mm) with a posterior maxillary residual bone height (RBH) of 6-8 mm. Patients were randomly divided into three groups: Group 1 (6 mm implants alone), Group 2 (8 mm implants + OSFE) and Group 3 (10 mm implants + OSFE). The following outcomes were recorded at 1 and 3-year examinations: implant survival, probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), modified plaque index (mPI), marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and technical complications, complication-free survival and treatment costs. RESULTS: At the 3-year follow-up, 199 patients (Group 1: 67; Group 2: 62; Group 3: 70) were re-examined. Implant survival rates were 91.80%, 97.08% and 100.00% in groups 1, 2 and 3. Implant survival rate in Group 1 was significantly lower than that in Group 3 (p = 0.029). A multivariate Cox model showed that the short-6-mm implants with wide diameter had a protective effect on implant survival (hazard ratio: 0.59, p = 0.001). No significant differences in BOP%, PPD, mPI, MBL and complication-free survival rate were found among the three groups. The average costs of retreatment were 8.31%, 1.96% and 0.56% of the total costs in groups 1, 2 and 3. The cost to avoid a 1% increase in implant loss associated with 6-mm implants over a 3-year period was 369 CNY (56 USD) using a 10-mm implant with OSFE and 484 CNY (74 USD) using an 8-mm implant with OSFE. CONCLUSION: In the moderately atrophic posterior maxillae, the three treatments showed acceptable clinical, radiographic and economic outcomes with up to 3-year follow-up. 10-mm implants combined with OSFE showed more favourable implant survival and fewer maintenance costs in comparison with short-6-mm implants, which were less expensive.