Occurrence of cases with peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis in a 21-26 years follow-up study.

AIM: To determine the prevalence and development of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and to assess risk factors over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a longitudinal case series assessing the occurrence and diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. RESULTS: A total of 218 of 294 patients who had received dental implants between 1988 and 1992 were examined between 2000 and 2002 (examination II; 9-14 years after the first examination). At examination III (20-26 years after examination I, on average 23.3 years), 86 individuals were re-examined. The diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at examination III was 54.7% and 22.1%, respectively. Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis after examination II resulted in a bone gain for two of 12 individuals. Individuals with ≥3 implants at examination II were at risk for peri-implantitis at examination III (P< 0.05). Radiographic evidence of periodontitis (p = 0.40), a diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis (p = .77) or smoking (p = .86) at examination II were not predictive of peri-implantitis at examination III. CONCLUSIONS: The diagnosis and occurrence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis were high. Healthy conditions at implants after 9-14 years were predictive of future implant health.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a 5-year follow-up.

AIM: To compare two regenerative surgical treatments for peri-implantitis over 5 years. MATERIAL & METHODS: Twenty-five individuals with peri-implantitis remained at study endpoint. They were treated with a bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (13 individuals with 23 implants) [Group 1], or with bone substitute alone (12 individuals with 22 implants) [Group 2]. All study individuals were kept on a strict maintenance programme every third month. RESULTS: Five-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements in both groups. No implants were lost due to progression of peri-implantitis. Probing depths were reduced by 3.0 ± 2.4 mm in Group 1, and 3.3 ± 2.09 mm in Group 2 (NS). In both groups, radiographic evidence of bone gain was significant (p < 0.001). At year 5, the average defect fill was 1.3 mm (SD ± 1.4 mm) in Group 1 and 1.1 mm (SD ± 1.2 mm) in Group 2 (mean diff; 0.4 95% CI -0.3, 1.2, p = 0.24). Bleeding on probing decreased in both groups. Baseline and year 5 plaque scores did not differ between groups and was reduced from 50% to 15%. CONCLUSION: Both procedures resulted in stable conditions. Additional use of a membrane does not improve the outcome.

The incidence of peri-implantitis for two different implant systems over a period of thirteen years.

OBJECTIVES: To study the incidence of peri-implantitis over 13 years between two types of dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Peri-implantitis incidence was defined as bone loss ≥ 1.0 mm after 1 year, and with BOP or suppuration. RESULTS: Nineteen subjects with TioBlast AstraTech(™) (AT) and 22 subjects with machine-etched Brånemark Nobel Biocare(®) (NB) implants were studied. The incidences of peri-implantitis between years 1 and 7 and between years 7 and 13 were 26.2% and 7.1% for AT implants, and 30.4% and 11.5% for NB implants (NS). A history of periodontitis was a risk for future incidence of peri-implantitis (Likelihood ratio: 4.1, 95% CI: 2.0, 8.4, p < 0.001). Subjects with a history of systemic disease had a higher incidence of peri-implantitis (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the incidence of peri-implantitis over a period of 13 years as an effect implant surface and design was found. Bone loss during the first 7 years after implant installation was greater than thereafter. Microbiological information at year 7 did not predict incidence of peri-implantitis at year 13. Subjects with a previous history of periodontitis and with systemic disease were at higher risk for future incidence of peri-implantitis.

Long-term stability of surgical bone regenerative procedures of peri-implantitis lesions in a prospective case-control study over 3 years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the extent of bone fill over 3 years following the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with bone grafting with or without a membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a non-submerged wound-healing mode, 15 subjects with 27 implants were treated with a bone substitute (Algipore(®)) alone and 17 subjects with 29 implants were treated with the bone substitute and a resorbable membrane (Osseoquest(®)). Implants with radiographic bone loss ≥1.8 mm following the first year in function and with bleeding and/or pus on probing were included. Following surgery, subjects were given systemic antibiotics (10 days) and rinsed with chlorhexidine. After initial healing, the subjects were enrolled in a strict maintenance programme. RESULTS: Statistical analysis failed to demonstrate changes in bone fill between 1 and 3 years both between and within procedure groups. The mean defect fill at 3 years was 1.3 ± (SD) 1.3 mm if treated with the bone substitute alone and 1.6 ± (SD) 1.2 mm if treated with an adjunct resorbable membrane, (p=0.40). The plaque index decreased from approximately 40-10%, remaining stable during the following 2 years. CONCLUSION: Defect fill using a bone substitute with or without a membrane technique in the treatment of peri-implantitis can be maintained over 3 years.

Microbiologic results after non-surgical erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet laser or air-abrasive treatment of peri-implantitis: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess clinical and microbiologic effects of the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis lesions using either an erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser or an air-abrasive subgingival polishing method. METHODS: In a 6-month clinical trial, 42 patients with peri-implantitis were treated at one time with an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device. Routine clinical methods were used to monitor clinical conditions. Baseline and 6-month intraoral radiographs were assessed with a software program. The checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method was used to assess 74 bacterial species from the site with the deepest probing depth (PD) at the implant. Non-parametric tests were applied to microbiology data. RESULTS: PD reductions (mean ± SD) were 0.9 ± 0.8 mm and 0.8 ± 0.5 mm in the laser and air-abrasive groups, respectively (not significant). No baseline differences in bacterial counts between groups were found. In the air-abrasive group, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus, and Staphylococcus anaerobius were found at lower counts at 1 month after therapy (P <0.001) and with lower counts in the laser group for Fusobacterium nucleatum naviforme (P = 0.002), and Fusobacterium nucleatum nucleatum (P = 0.002). Both treatments failed to reduce bacterial counts at 6 months. Porphyromonas gingivalis counts were higher in cases with progressive peri-implantitis (P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 month, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, and S. anaerobius were reduced in the air-abrasive group, and Fusobacterium spp. were reduced in the laser group. Six-month data demonstrated that both methods failed to reduce bacterial counts. Clinical improvements were limited.

Treatment of peri-implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-surgical peri-implantitis therapies appear to be ineffective. Limited data suggest that ER:YAG laser therapy improves clinical conditions. The present study aimed at comparing the treatment effects between air-abrasive (AM) and Er:YAG laser (LM) mono-therapy in cases with severe peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one subjects in each group were randomly assigned to one time intervention by an air-abrasive device or an Er:YAG laser. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 6 months. Data analysis was performed using repeat univariate analysis of variance controlling for subject factors. RESULTS: No baseline subject characteristic differences were found. Bleeding on probing and suppuration decreased in both the groups (p<0.001). The mean probing depth (PPD) reductions in the AM and LM groups were 0.9 mm (SD 0.8) and 0.8 mm (SD ± 0.5), with mean bone-level changes (loss) of -0.1 mm (SD ± 0.8) and -0.3 mm (SD ± 0.9), respectively (NS). A positive treatment outcome, PPD reduction ≥0.5 mm and gain or no loss of bone were found in 47% and 44% in the AM and LM groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical treatment results were limited and similar between the two methods compared with those in cases with severe peri-implantitis.

Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a single-blinded randomized longitudinal clinical study. II. Microbiological results.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is common in patients with dental implants. We performed a single-blinded longitudinal randomized study to assess the effects of mechanical debridement on the peri-implant microbiota in peri-implantitis lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An expanded checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization assay encompassing 79 different microorganisms was used to study bacterial counts before and during 6 months following mechanical treatment of peri-implantitis in 17 cases treated with curettes and 14 cases treated with an ultrasonic device. Statistics included non-parametric tests and GLM multivariate analysis with p<0001 indicating significance and 80% power. RESULTS: At selected implant test sites, the most prevalent bacteria were: Fusobacterium nucleatum sp., Staphylococci sp., Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Helicobacter pylori, and Tannerella forsythia. 30 min. after treatment with curettes, A. actinomycetemcomitans (serotype a), Lactobacillus acidophilus, Streptococcus anginosus, and Veillonella parvula were found at lower counts (p<0.001). No such differences were found for implants treated with the ultrasonic device. Inconsistent changes occurred following the first week. No microbiological differences between baseline and 6-month samples were found for any species or between treatment study methods in peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods failed to eliminate or reduce bacterial counts in peri-implantitis. No group differences were found in the ability to reduce the microbiota in peri-implantitis.

Short-term effects of an anti-inflammatory treatment on clinical parameters and serum levels of C-reactive protein and proinflammatory cytokines in subjects with periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is the most common multifactorial disease, afflicting a very large proportion of the adult population. Periodontal disease secondarily causes increases in the serum levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and other markers of inflammation. An increased level of CRP reflects an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of the current randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the short-term effect of a combination of dipyridamole and prednisolone (CRx-102) on the levels of high-sensitivity (hs)-CRP, proinflammatory markers in blood, and clinical signs of periodontal disease. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with >/=10 pockets with probing depths >/=5 mm were randomized into two groups in this masked single-center placebo-controlled study: CRx-102 (n = 28) and placebo (n = 29). hs-CRP levels, inflammatory markers (interleukin [IL]-6, -1beta, -8, and -12, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interferon-gamma [IFN-gamma]), bleeding on probing (BOP), and changes in probing depths were evaluated. The subjects received mechanical non-surgical therapy after 42 days, and the study was completed after 49 days. RESULTS: At day 42, the differences in the hs-CRP, IFN-gamma, and IL-6 levels between the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05), whereas no difference was found for the other inflammatory markers. There was no change in probing depth or BOP between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The administration of CRx-102 resulted in significant decreases in hs-CRP, IFN-gamma, and IL-6, but it did not significantly change BOP or probing depths.

Mechanical non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a double-blind randomized longitudinal clinical study. I: clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding in patients with dental implants. The present study compared two non-surgical mechanical debridement methods of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-seven subjects (mean age 61.5; S.D+/-12.4), with one implant each, demonstrating peri-implantitis were randomized, and those treated either with titanium hand-instruments or with an ultrasonic device were enrolled. Data were obtained before treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. Parametric and non-parametric statistics were used. RESULTS: Thirty-one subjects completed the study. The mean bone loss at implants in both groups was 1.5 mm (SD +/-1.2 mm). No group differences for plaque or gingival indices were found at any time point. Baseline and 6-month mean probing pocket depths (PPD) at implants were 5.1 and 4.9 mm (p=0.30) in both groups. Plaque scores at treated implants decreased from 73% to 53% (p<0.01). Bleeding scores also decreased (p<0.01), with no group differences. No differences in the total bacterial counts were found over time. Higher total bacterial counts were found immediately after treatment (p<0.01) and at 1 week for ultrasonic-treated implants (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: No group differences were found in the treatment outcomes. While plaque and bleeding scores improved, no effects on PPD were identified.

Mechanical and repeated antimicrobial therapy using a local drug delivery system in the treatment of peri-implantitis: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory process caused by microorganisms affecting the tissues around an osseointegrated implant in function, resulting in a loss of supporting bone. Limited data exist regarding the treatment of peri-implantitis. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and microbiologic outcome of repeated local administration of minocycline microspheres, 1 mg, in cases of peri-implantitis. METHODS: Thirty-two subjects with at least one implant with a probing depth > or =4 mm combined with bleeding and/or exudate on probing and the presence of putative pathogenic bacteria were included in the study. At baseline, subjects were randomly assigned to receive local minocycline microspheres (17 subjects and 57 implants) or chlorhexidine gel (15 subjects and 38 implants) following debridement. Treatments were performed on three occasions: baseline and days 30 and 90. Follow-up examinations were conducted at 10 days and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTS: The use of minocycline resulted in significant improvements in probing depths compared to chlorhexidine at days 30, 90, and 180 (P = 0.5, P = 0.01, and P = 0.04, respectively). For the deepest sites of the minocycline-treated implants, the mean probing depth reduction was 0.6 mm at 12 months. Regarding bleeding on probing, significant differences between groups, based on all four sites at the implants, were found at days 30, 90, 180, 270, and 360. Both treatments resulted in a marked reduction in the indicator bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a repeated local antibiotic as an adjunct to the mechanical treatment of peri-implantitis lesions demonstrated improvements in probing depths that were significantly different from controls and were sustained for 6 months. The adjunctive use of minocycline microspheres is beneficial in the treatment of peri-implant lesions, but the treatment may have to be repeated.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to compare two regenerative surgical treatment modalities for peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients having a minimum of one osseointegrated implant, with a progressive loss of bone amounting to > or =3 threads (1.8 mm) following the first year of healing, combined with bleeding and/or pus on probing, were involved in this study. The patients were assigned to two different treatment strategies. After surgical exposure of the defect, granulomatous tissue was removed and the infected implant surface was treated using 3% hydrogen peroxide. The bone defects were filled with a bone substitute (Algipore). In 17 patients (Group 1), a resorbable membrane (Osseoquest) was placed over the grafted defect before suturing. In 19 patients (Group 2), the graft was used alone. RESULTS: One-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements. Probing depths were reduced by 2.9 mm in Group 1 and by 3.4 mm in Group 2. Defect fill amounted to 1.5 and 1.4 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: It is possible to treat peri-implant defects with a bone substitute, with or without a resorbable membrane.

Submerged healing following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to study a regenerative surgical treatment modality for peri-implantitis employing submerged healing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve patients, having a minimum of one osseointegrated implant with peri-implantitis, with a progressive loss of >or=3 threads (1.8 mm) following the first year of healing were involved in the study. After surgical exposure of the defect, granulomatous tissue was removed and the implant surface was treated using 3% hydrogen peroxide. The bone defects were filled with a bone substitute (Algipore), a resorbable membrane (Osseoquest) was placed over the grafted defect and a cover screw was connected to the fixture. The implant was then covered by flaps and submerged healing was allowed for 6 months. After 6 months the abutment was re-connected to the supra-structure. RESULTS: A 1-year follow-up demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements. Probing depth was reduced by 4.2 mm and a mean defect fill of 2.3 mm was obtained. CONCLUSION: Treatment of peri-implant defects using a bone graft substitute combined with a resorbable membrane and submerged healing results in defect fill and clinical healthier situations.

Infection at titanium implants with or without a clinical diagnosis of inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the microbiota at implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis, implant mucositis, or being clinically healthy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical and microbiological data were collected from 213 subjects (mean age: 65.7+/-14) with 976 implants in function (mean: 10.8 years, SD+/-1.5). Forty species were identified by the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method. RESULTS: Implant mean % plaque score was 41.8+/-32.4%. Periodontitis defined by bone loss was found in 44.9% of subjects. Implant mucositis was diagnosed in 59% and peri-implantitis in 14.9% of all cases. Neisseria mucosa, Fusobacterium nucleatum sp. nucleatum, F. nucleatum sp. polymorphum, and Capnocytophaga sputigena dominated the implant sub-mucosal microbiota and the sub-gingival microbiota at tooth sites. Implant probing pocket depth at the implant site with the deepest probing depth was correlated with levels of Eikenella corrodens (r=0.16, P<0.05), the levels of F. nucleatum sp. vincentii (r=0.15, P<0.05), Porphyromonas gingivalis (r=0.14, P<0.05), and Micromonas micros (r=0.17, P=0.01). E. corrodens was found in higher levels at implants with mucositis compared with implant health (P<0.05). Subjects who lost teeth due to periodontitis had higher yields of F. nucleatum sp. vincentii (P<0.02) and N. mucosa (P<0.05). Independent of implant status subjects with teeth had higher levels of P. gingivalis (P<0.05), and Leptotrichia buccalis (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: At implant sites studied, few bacteria differed by whether subjects were dentate or not or by implant status.

Topical minocycline microspheres versus topical chlorhexidine gel as an adjunct to mechanical debridement of incipient peri-implant infections: a randomized clinical trial.

AIM: This randomized clinical trial presents a 12-month follow-up of the clinical and microbiological results after application of minocycline microspheres as an adjunct to mechanical treatment of incipient peri-implant infections compared with an adjunctive treatment using 1% chlorhexidine gel application. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-two subjects with probing depth > or =4 mm, combined with bleeding and/or exudate on probing and presence of putative pathogenic bacteria were given oral hygiene instructions and mechanical treatment of infected areas adjacent to implants. The subjects were then randomly assigned adjunctive subgingival antimicrobial treatment using either chlorhexidine gel or minocycline microspheres. Sixteen patients in the minocycline group and 14 in the chlorhexidine group completed the study. Follow-up examinations were carried out after 10 days, 1, 2, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. RESULTS: The adjunctive use of minocycline microspheres resulted in improvements of probing depths and bleeding scores, whereas the adjunctive use of chlorhexidine only resulted in limited reduction of bleeding scores. For the deepest sites of the treated implants in the minocycline group, the mean probing depth was reduced from 5.0 to 4.4 mm at 12 months. This study could not show any significant difference in the levels of bacterial species or groups at any time point between the two antimicrobial agents tested. The present findings encourage further studies on adjunctive use of minocycline microspheres in the treatment of peri-implant lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a local antibiotic as an adjunct to mechanical treatment of incipient peri-implantitis lesions demonstrated improvements in probing depths that were sustained over 12 months.

Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part I: implant loss and associations to various factors.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term result of implant therapy, using implant loss as outcome variable. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Two hundred and ninty-four patients had received implant therapy (Brånemark System) during the years of 1988-1992 in Kristianstad County, Sweden. The patients were recalled to the speciality clinic 1 and 5 years after placement of the suprastructure. Between 2000 and 2002, 9-14 years after implant placements, the patients were again called in for a complete clinical and radiographic examination. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighteen patients treated with 1057 implants were examined. Twenty-two patients had lost 46 implants and 12 implants were considered "sleeping implants". The overall survival rate was 95.7%. Implant loss appeared in a cluster in a few patients and early failures were most common. Eight patients lost more than one fixture. A significant relationship was observed between implant loss and periodontal bone loss of the remaining teeth at implant placement. Maxillary, as opposed to mandibulary implants, showed more implant loss if many implants were placed in the jaw. A significant relationship between smoking habits and implant loss was not found. CONCLUSION: A history of periodontitis seems to be related to implant loss.

Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the proportions of peri-implant lesions at implants after 9-14 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-four patients underwent implant therapy during the years 1988-1992 in Kristianstad County. These individuals were recalled to the speciality clinic 1 and 5 years after placement of the suprastructure. Between 2000 and 2002, 218 patients with 999 implants were examined clinically and radiographically. RESULTS: Forty-eight per cent of the implants had probing depth > or =4 mm and bleeding on probing (peri-implant mucositis). In 20.4% of the implants, the bone level was located 3.1 mm apical to the implant shoulder. Progressive bone loss (> or =1.8 mm) during the observation period was found in 7.7% of the implants. Peri-implantitis defined as bone loss > or =1.8 mm compared with 1-year data (the apical border of the bony defect located at or apical to the third thread, i.e. a minimum of 3.1 mm apical to the implant shoulder), combined with bleeding on probing and or pus, were diagnosed among 16% of the patients and 6.6% of the implants. CONCLUSION: After 10 years in use without systematic supportive treatment, peri-implant lesions is a common clinical entity adjacent to titanium implants.

Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part III: factors associated with peri-implant lesions.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present paper was to analyse, on patient and implant basis, factors related to peri-implant lesions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and eighteen patients treated with titanium implants were examined for biological complications at existing implants 9-14 years after initial therapy. The effects of several potentially explanatory variables, both on patient and on implant levels, were analysed. RESULTS: On the implant level, the presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 0.02) and plaque (p = 0.005) was associated with mucositis (probing depth > or =4 mm + bleeding on probing). The bone level at implants was associated with the presence of keratinized mucosa (p = 0.03) and the presence of pus (p < 0.001). On the patient level, smoking was associated with mucositis, bone level and peri-implantitis (p = 0.02, <0.001 and 0.002, respectively). Peri-implantitis was related to a previous history of periodontitis (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a history of periodontitis and individuals who smoke are more likely to develop peri-implant lesions.

Treatment of incipient peri-implant infections using topical minocycline microspheres versus topical chlorhexidine gel as an adjunct to mechanical debridement.

This report presents the clinical results three months after application of minocycline microspheres as an adjunct to mechanical treatment of incipient peri-implant infections compared to adjunctive treatment employing 1% chlorhexidine gel application. Sixteen patients in the minocycline group and 14 in the chlorhexidine group completed the study. Each patient had one or more implants with probing depth > or = 4 mm combined with bleeding and/or exudate on probing and presence of putative pathogenic bacteria. At baseline, patients were randomly assigned to minocycline or chlorhexidine treatment. Follow-up examinations were carried out after 10, 30, 60 and 90 days. The combined mechanical/antimicrobial treatment for the chlorhexidine group did not result in any reduction in probing depth and only limited reduction of bleeding scores. The adjunctive use of minocycline microspheres, on the other hand, resulted in improvements in both probing depths and bleeding scores. For the deepest sites of the treated implants, mean probing depth was reduced from 5.0 mm to 4.1 mm. The reductions in bleeding scores, although greater than for the chlorhexidine group, were modest. Thus, the question as to what extent the combined mechanical/minocycline treatment could be considered adequate for the treated lesions remains to be answered. The present short-term findings, however, encourage further studies with longer observation intervals on adjunctive use of minocycline microspheres in the treatment of periimplant lesions.