ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between Gram-negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas with the clinical parameters in peri-implant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with implants and diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis participate in this cross-sectional research. Unusual microorganisms from the implants were recognized using MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry. Linear regression models were applied. RESULTS: A total of 103 implants were evaluated in thirty-one participants. Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas were observed in 47 implants (46%). Interestingly, there were differences in probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CA), and bleeding on probing (BOP) between the groups, where implants with the presence of Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas presented deteriorated clinical parameters (p < .0001). The crude and adjusted linear regression models for PPD in peri-implant mucositis, PPD in peri-implantitis, CA in peri-implantitis, and BOP in peri-implant disease present significant ßs, demonstrating deteriorated parameters (p < .0001) in the presence of Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas. Besides, the model for CA in peri-implantitis showed that cemented restored reconstructions were statistically significant (p = .009). Additionally, the R2 value in most models indicated a high degree of correlation (>85%). CONCLUSION: The occurrence of Gram-negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas was associated with deteriorated clinical parameters in patients with peri-implant disease.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between Gram-negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas with mucositis and peri-implantitis, in implants restored with cemented and screw-retained reconstructions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals treated with implants, diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and or peri-implantitis, participated in this study. Microbiota from the implant and the gingival sulcus of two neighboring teeth were also studied. The microorganisms were identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. RESULTS: A total of 52 and 51 implants cemented and screwed restored were evaluated in 31 patients. The presence of Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas (P = .01) was significantly higher in the cemented restored implants. When the unit of analysis was the implant, the presence of Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants after adjustment for possible confounders (odds ratio [OR] = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.4-10; P = .01); besides, peri-implantitis was statistically significant in the multivariate model (P = .008). Considering the patient as a unit of analysis, peri-implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants (OR = 9.4; 95% CI, 2-46; P = .006); this statistically significant association remained after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3-37; P = .02). CONCLUSION: The presence of Gram-negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants; besides, peri-implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants.
