Neurogenic inflammation in periimplant and periodontal disease: A case-control split-mouth study.

OBJECTIVE: Although the regulatory effects of substance-P (SP), neurokinin-A (NKA), calcitonin gene-linked peptide (CGRP) and neuropeptide-Y (NPY) on periodontal inflammatory responses have been described, the effects of these neuropeptides on healthy and diseased periimplant tissues are not clearly defined. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine implants loaded at least for 12 months with their symmetrically matching teeth were evaluated and compared by a split-mouth study design. Six study groups were created in this regard as follows: group 1 (healthy periodontal tissues), group 2 (healthy periimplant tissues), group 3 (gingivitis), group 4 (periimplant mucositis), group 5 (periodontitis) and group 6 (periimplantitis). Clinical examinations included Silness-Löe plaque index, Löe-Silness gingival index, bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level measurements. Gingival crevicular fluid and periimplant sulcular fluid samples were collected, and the concentrations of neuropeptides were determined by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Their levels and correlations were investigated together with the clinical parameters. RESULTS: Neuropeptide levels were different in the teeth and implant groups according to the periodontal status (p < 0.001). SP and NKA levels were increased, whereas CGRP and NPY levels were decreased in the diseased states. There were no differences between the neuropeptide levels of matching teeth and implants (groups 1-2, groups 3-4 and groups 5-6; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the presence of local neuropeptides in healthy and diseased periimplant tissues. The neurogenic inflammatory responses were also found to be similar in both periimplant and periodontal tissues.

Osmotic pressure of periimplant sulcular and gingival crevicular fluids: a split-mouth, randomized study of its measurement and clinical significance.

OBJECTIVES: This study comparatively investigated periimplant sulcular fluid (PISF) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) by means of the osmotic pressure (OP) levels of PISF (PISFOP) and GCF (GCFOP). It was a preliminary research that aimed to quantify PISFOP and GCFOP as well as to evaluate their clinical significances around implants and teeth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Partially edentulous implant patients treated by the same clinicians and using the same implant system were randomized in a split-mouth trial design. Fifty-four implants and teeth from these patients were selected in the same mouth and jaw as matched pairs of samples, i.e. as symmetrical or corresponding implant and tooth. PISFOP/GCFOP measurement was performed by an osmometer following PISF/GCF sampling procedures. Clinical significance was evaluated by the correlations between PISFOP/GCFOP and some clinical examination parameters of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues. These parameters included Silness-Löe plaque index (PI), Löe-Silness gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL). RESULTS: PISFOP was higher than GCFOP, and GI, BOP, PPD and PAL were higher in the implant group than in the tooth group (P<0.05). PISFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of implants (P<0.01 for PI, GI and BOP; P<0.05 for PPD and PAL), and GCFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of teeth (P<0.01 for PPD; P<0.05 for PI, GI, BOP and PAL). CONCLUSIONS: The results reveal that PISFOP and GCFOP may be measured by osmometer, and their levels may be related with the clinical conditions of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues.