The efficacy of reconstructive therapy in the surgical management of peri-implantitis: A 3-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To assess whether guided bone regeneration (GBR) treatment of peri-implantitis-related bony defects could improve healing compared to open flap debridement (OFD) at 36 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received OFD (control group [CG]) and 34 GBR treatment (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) suppuration (SUP), mucosal recession (MREC) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 36 months. RESULTS: Fifty individuals attended a supportive peri-implant therapy program and completed the 36-month follow-up. GBR treatment resulted in an RDF of 2.13 ± 1.26 mm compared to 1.64 ± 1.54 mm following OFD (p = .18). No difference was found in PPD, BOP, SUP, REC or PROs between the groups. Successful treatment (no additional bone loss, PPD ≤ 5 mm, no BOP and no SUP) was achieved in 46.2% in TG and 20% in CG (p = .053). Treatment results obtained at 12 months were generally maintained up to 36 months. No significant changes were noticed between 12 and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: At 36 months, treatment results obtained at 1 year were sustained following both GBR and OFD in patients attending supportive peri-implant therapy. GBR resulted in more RDF and higher composite treatment success rate than OFD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier [NCT02375750]).

Radiographic and Histologic Evaluations of Peri-implantitis on the Grafted Maxillary Sinus: A Report of Two Cases.

Management of peri-implantitis is becoming an increasing issue for implantologists and periodontists. The need for bone augmentation is more and more frequent, especially in the posterior maxilla requiring sinus augmentation. Peri-implantitis represents a real danger for implants, but to this day, the available literature concerning the impact of this disease on regenerated bone and on maxillary sinus pathology is very limited. This report presents two cases showing bone alterations due to peri-implantitis and its possible impact on maxillary sinus health. In both cases, the causal implant was removed regardless of prior functional endoscopic surgery to restore sinus health, and it was not necessary to implement any reconstruction procedure because bone regeneration occurred naturally. Further research will be necessary to confirm these initial findings.

Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with or without a deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a native bilayer collagen membrane: A randomized clinical trial.

AIM: To assess whether the use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and native bilayer collagen membrane (NBCM) improved healing of peri-implantitis-related bone defects at 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multi-centre, randomized clinical trial, 32 individuals received surgical debridement (control group [CG]), and 34 received adjunct use of DBBM and NBCM (test group [TG]). Radiographic defect fill (RDF), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUP), recession (REC), cytokines (IL-1ß, IL-1RA, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, IP10, PDGF-BB, TNF-α, VEGF), and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. RESULTS: RDF at the deepest site amounted 2.7 ± 1.3 mm in TG and 1.4 ± 1.2 mm in CG (p <.0001). PPD was reduced by 1.9 mm in TG and 2.3 mm in CG (p = .5783). There were no significant differences between groups regarding reductions of BOP, SUP, REC, cytokines levels, or oral health impact profile (OHIP)-14 scores at 12 months. Successful treatment (RDF ≥ 1.0 mm, PPD ≤5 mm, ≤1/4 site with BOP grade 1, no SUP) was identified in 32% in TG and 21% in CG. CONCLUSIONS: DBBM and NBCM resulted in significantly more RDF than debridement alone. No difference was found in any clinical parameters or PROs between the groups. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375750.

Local risk indicators - Consensus report of working group 2.

In implant dentistry, plaque control and oral hygiene practices are essential to limit the risk of complication and failure in the long term. All conditions around an implant in function that influence the load and pathogenicity of the microbiota are considered local risk indicators. They concern the prosthetic suprastructure design and the possibility for the patient to easily access each implant for plaque removal. Use of cemented prostheses should be limited to avoid excess cement acting as a foreign body and leading to peri-implant disease. The crown margins should be supramucosal, and the connection should be precise to avoid a gap between the implant and the suprastructure. Every implant system is characterised by a specific design, surface texture and connection type. These features may influence peri-implantitis development and progression, and the clinician should consider the risk of infection when selecting an implant. The soft-tissue conditions around the implant, the width of keratinised mucosa, and the phenotype and thickness of the mucosa are also considered major risk indicators, as the presence of any mucosal defect around an implant can increase plaque accumulation and result in tissue inflammation. The pathogenicity of the microbiota around an implant is primarily dependent on pocket depth. Deep pockets around implants should be avoided and, if present, closely monitored and/or reduced. Proximity to natural teeth presenting endodontic and/or periodontal lesions may result in implant contamination, but the influence of the type of edentulism on perio-pathogen presence is still unclear. These local conditions around an implant have a clear influence on peri-implant diseases development and progression, but there is still only limited evidence regarding their role as true risk indicators.

Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis.

AIMS: Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis. METHODS: Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants. RESULTS: Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.