Periodontitis—therapy of a widespread disease

Parodontitis ist eine chronisch entzündliche nichtübertragbare Erkrankung, die alle Anteile des Zahnhalteapparates (Parodonts) betrifft und dort weitgehend irreversible Schäden verursacht. Schätzungen legen nahe, dass in Deutschland ca. 10 Mio. Menschen an einer schweren Parodontitis erkrankt sind. Parodontitis zeigt über viele Jahre zumeist wenige oder nur milde Symptome, die von den Patienten oft nicht wahrgenommen oder richtig eingeordnet werden. Fehlendes Bewusstsein kann dazu führen, dass zahnärztliche Behandlung erst in einem fortgeschrittenen Erkrankungsverlauf in Anspruch genommen wird, wenn umfangreiche Therapiemaßnahmen notwendig geworden sind und sich die Prognose für den Erhalt der Zähne verschlechtert hat. Der parodontale Screeningindex (PSI) ist ein einfaches und schnelles Instrument, mit dem die Notwendigkeit weiterführender diagnostischer Maßnahmen beurteilt werden kann. Der Index wird mittlerweile bei vielen Patienten durchgeführt. Trotzdem bleiben die Versorgungszahlen niedrig und hinter dem zurück, was für das Absenken der bestehenden Parodontitislast notwendig wäre. Jede Zahnarztpraxis muss in der Lage sein, Parodontitistherapie umzusetzen. Fachzahnärzte oder Spezialisten können die allgemeinzahnärztlichen Kollegen wesentlich bei der Behandlung von schweren Formen von Parodontitis unterstützen. Dazu ist eine Aufwertung des Faches in der universitären Ausbildung erforderlich, aber auch die zunehmende postgraduale Ausdifferenzierung von Spezialisten oder Fachzahnärzten für Parodontologie. Die neuen Behandlungsrichtlinien für die Parodontaltherapie (PAR-Therapie) erlauben die Versorgung der parodontal erkrankten Patienten auf Basis international anerkannter wissenschaftlicher Standards und verbessern damit die Rahmenbedingungen für die Parodontitistherapie in der zahnärztlichen Praxis.Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory noncommunicable disease that affects all parts of the periodontium and causes irreversible damage. It is estimated that around 10 million people in Germany suffer from severe forms of periodontitis. The disease usually shows few or only mild symptoms over many years, which are often not perceived or correctly classified by the patient. A lack of awareness could lead to dental treatment being sought in an advanced stage of the disease when extensive therapeutic measures have become necessary and the prognosis for tooth retention has worsened. The periodontal screening index (PSI) is a simple and rapid tool that is used to assess the level of further examination needed. The index is now carried out on many patients. However, the number of treatments remain low and behind what is necessary to reduce the existing burden of periodontitis. Every dental practice must be able to implement periodontal therapy in their clinical setting. Periodontal specialists can support general dentists significantly, especially in the treatment of severe forms of periodontitis. This requires an upgrading of the subject in university education, but also an increasing postgraduate differentiation of specialized dentists for periodontology. The new treatment guidelines for PAR (periodontal) therapy allow periodontal treatment on the basis of internationally recognized scientific standards and thus improve the framework conditions for therapy in the dental practice

Resective surgery for the treatment of furcation involvement: a systematic review

Objective: To evaluate the benefit of resective surgical periodontal therapy (root amputation or resection, root separation, tunnelling) in periodontitis patients exhibiting class II and III furcation involvement (FI) compared with non‐surgical treatment (SRP) or open flap debridement (OFD). Material: Outcomes were tooth survival (primary), vertical probing attachment gain, and reduction in probing pocket depth (secondary) evidenced by randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case series with ≥ 12 months of follow‐up. Search was performed on 3 electronic databases from January 1998 to December 2018. Results: From a total of 683 articles, 66 studies were identified for full‐text analysis and 7 studies finally included. Six hundred sixty‐seven patients contributed 2,021 teeth with class II or III FI. Data were very heterogeneous regarding follow‐up and distribution of FI. A total of 1,515 teeth survived 4 to 30.8 years after therapy. Survival ranged from 38%–94.4% (root amputation or resection, root separation), 62%–67% (tunnelling), 63%–85% (OFD) and 68%–80% (SRP). Overall, treatment provided better results for class II FI than class III. Conclusion: Within their limits, the data indicate that in class II and III FI, SRP and OFD may result in similar survival rates as root amputation/resection, root separation or tunnelling

Comparison of two different periodontal risk assessment methods with regard to their agreement: Periodontal risk assessment versus periodontal risk calculator

Aim: To evaluate the level of agreement between the periodontal risk assessment (PRA) and the periodontal risk calculator (PRC). Materials and methods: Periodontal risk was retrospectively assessed among 50 patients using PRA and PRC. Both methods were modified. PRA by assessing probing pocket depths and bleeding on probing at four (PRA4) and six (PRA6) sites per tooth, PRC by permanently marking or unmarking the dichotomously selectable factors “irregular recall,” “oral hygiene in need of improvement” and “completed scaling and root planing” for PRC. Agreement between PRA and PRCred (summarized risk categories) was determined using weighted kappa. Results: Fifty patients enrolled in periodontal maintenance (48% female, age: 63.8 ± 11.2 years) participated. PRA4 and PRA6 matched in 32 (64%) patients (κ‐coefficient = 0.48, p < .001). There was 100% agreement between both PRC versions. There was minimal agreement of PRA6 and PRCred (66%, 28% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.34; p = .001). PRA4 and PRCred did not match (60% agreement, 34% one different category, 6% two different categories; κ‐coefficient = 0.23; p = .13). For the SPT diagnosis of severe periodontitis, PRA6 and PRCred agreed weakly (κ‐coefficient = 0.44; p = .004). Conclusion: PRA and PRC showed a minimal agreement. Specific disease severity may result in improved agreement

Peri-implant soft tissue colour around titanium and zirconia abutments: a prospective randomized controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVES To objectively determine the difference in colour between the peri-implant soft tissue at titanium and zirconia abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eleven patients, each with two contralaterally inserted osteointegrated dental implants, were included in this study. The implants were restored either with titanium abutments and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns, or with zirconia abutments and ceramic crowns. Prior and after crown cementation, multi-spectral images of the peri-implant soft tissues and the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth were taken with a colorimeter. The colour parameters L*, a*, b*, c* and the colour differences ΔE were calculated. Descriptive statistics, including non-parametric tests and correlation coefficients, were used for statistical analyses of the data. RESULTS Compared to the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth, the peri-implant soft tissue around titanium and zirconia (test group), showed distinguishable ΔE both before and after crown cementation. Colour differences around titanium were statistically significant different (P = 0.01) only at 1 mm prior to crown cementation compared to zirconia. Compared to the gingiva of the neighbouring teeth, statistically significant (P < 0.01) differences were found for all colour parameter, either before or after crown cementation for both abutments; more significant differences were registered for titanium abutments. Tissue thickness correlated positively with c*-values for titanium at 1 mm and 2 mm from the gingival margin. CONCLUSIONS Within their limits, the present data indicate that: (i) The peri-implant soft tissue around titanium and zirconia showed colour differences when compared to the soft tissue around natural teeth, and (ii) the peri-implant soft tissue around zirconia demonstrated a better colour match to the soft tissue at natural teeth than titanium

In vitro surgical and non-surgical air-polishing efficacy for implant surface decontamination in three different defect configurations

Objectives!#!Evaluation of surgical and non-surgical air-polishing in vitro efficacy for implant surface decontamination.!##!Material and methods!#!One hundred eighty implants were distributed to three differently angulated bone defect models (30°, 60°, 90°). Biofilm was imitated using indelible red color. Sixty implants were used for each defect, 20 of which were air-polished with three different types of glycine air powder abrasion (GAPA1-3) combinations. Within 20 equally air-polished implants, a surgical and non-surgical (with/without mucosa mask) procedure were simulated. All implants were photographed to determine the uncleaned surface. Changes in surface morphology were assessed using scanning electron micrographs (SEM).!##!Results!#!Cleaning efficacy did not show any significant differences between GAPA1-3 for surgical and non-surgical application. Within a cleaning method significant (p &amp;lt; 0.001) differences for GAPA2 between 30° (11.77 ± 2.73%) and 90° (7.25 ± 1.42%) in the non-surgical and 30° (8.26 ± 1.02%) and 60° (5.02 ± 0.84%) in the surgical simulation occurred. The surgical use of air-polishing (6.68 ± 1.66%) was significantly superior (p &amp;lt; 0.001) to the non-surgical (10.13 ± 2.75%). SEM micrographs showed no surface damages after use of GAPA.!##!Conclusions!#!Air-polishing is an efficient, surface protective method for surgical and non-surgical implant surface decontamination in this in vitro model. No method resulted in a complete cleaning of the implant surface.!##!Clinical relevance!#!Air-polishing appears to be promising for implant surface decontamination regardless of the device

Long-term prognosis of teeth with class III furcation involvement

Objective: Evaluation of survival of teeth with class III furcation involvement (FI) ≥5 years after active periodontal treatment (APT) and identification of prognostic factors. Methods: All charts of patients who completed APT at the Department of Periodontology of Goethe-University Frankfurt, Germany, beginning October 2004 were screened for teeth with class III FI. APT had to be accomplished for ≥5 years. Charts were analysed for data of class III FI teeth at baseline (T0), at accomplishment of APT (T1), and at the last supportive periodontal care (T2). Baseline radiographic bone loss (RBL) and treatment were assessed. Results: One-hundred and sixty patients (age: 54.4 ± 9.8 years; 82 females; 39 active smokers; 9 diabetics, 85 stage III, 75 stage IV, 59 grade B, 101 grade C) presented 265 teeth with class III FI. Ninety-eight teeth (37%) were lost during 110, 78/137 (median, lower/upper quartile) months. Logistic mixed-model regression and mixed Cox proportional hazard model associated adjunctive systemic antibiotics with fewer tooth loss (26% vs. 42%; p = .019/.004) and RBL (p = .014/.024) and mean probing pocket depth (PPD) at T1 (p < .001) with more tooth loss. Conclusions: Subgingival instrumentation with adjunctive systemic antibiotics favours retention of class III furcation-involved teeth. Baseline RBL and PPD at T1 deteriorate long-term prognosis

Ten-Year Stability of Clinical Attachment after Regenerative Treatment of Infrabony Defects and Controls

Background: A similar long-term stable clinical attachment level (CAL) of infrabony defects (IBDs) after regenerative treatment compared to control teeth would indicate a high level of stability resulting from the regenerative approach. Methods: Patients with a regeneratively treated IBD were screened 120 ± 12 months postoperatively for eligibility for study participation, and were included if complete baseline and 12-month examinations (plaque (PlI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), CAL) were available and a respective control tooth could be identified. Re-examination included clinical examination (PPD, CAL, PlI/GI, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, gingival bleeding index). Results: A total of 27 patients (16 females; age (median; lower/upper quartile): 57.0; 44.0/60.0 years; 6 smokers) contributed 27 IBDs (test), for each of which a control tooth was identified. Five test teeth (18.5%) were lost between 12 and 120 months. The remaining 22 test teeth revealed a significant CAL gain after 1 (2.5 mm; 1.0/4.0 mm, p p p = 0.396; 10 years: 0.0 mm; −1.0/1.5 mm, p = 0.215). The study did not detect any significant CAL change between 1 and 10 years for test (−0.5 mm; −1.0/0.5 mm, p = 0.414) and control teeth (0.0 mm; −1.0/1.0 mm, p = 0.739). In 15 patients, test and control teeth revealed stable CAL values between 12 and 120 months. Conclusion: Regenerative treatment of IBDs exhibited stability comparable to non-surgically treated, periodontally reduced sites over a 10-year period

Bacterial and inflammatory behavior of implants in the early healing phase of chronic periodontitis

To assess the pattern of early bacterial colonization at implants and teeth in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis compared with a group of healthy subjects. Furthermore, the presence of host-derived markers at teeth and implants in the two subject groups was determined

Retrospectively analysed tooth loss in periodontally compromised patients: long-term results 10 years after active periodontal therapy - patient-related outcomes

Background and Objective: Long-term tooth retention is the ultimate goal of periodontal therapy. Aim of this study was to evaluate tooth loss (TL) during 10 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in periodontal compromised patients and to identify factors influencing TL on patient level. Material and Methods: Patients were re-examined 120 ± 12 months after active periodontal therapy. TL and risk factors [smoking, initial diagnosis, SPT adherence, interleukin-1 polymorphism, cardiovascular diseases, age at baseline, bleeding on probing (BOP), change of practitioner, insurance status, number of SPT, marital and educational status] influencing TL on patient level were assessed. Results: One-hundred patients (52 female, mean age 65.6 ± 11 years) lost 121 of 2428 teeth (1.21 teeth/patient; 0.12 teeth/patient/y) during 10 years of SPT. Forty-two of these were lost for periodontal reasons (0.42 teeth/patient; 0.04 teeth/patient/y). Significantly more teeth were lost due to other reasons (P < .001). Smoking, baseline severity of periodontitis, non-adherent SPT, positive interleukin-1 polymorphism, marital and educational status, private insurance, older age at baseline and BOP, small number of SPT were identified as patient-related risk factors for TL (P < .05). Conclusion: During 120 ± 12 months of SPT, only a small number of teeth was lost in periodontally compromised patients showing the positive effect of a well-established periodontal treatment concept. The remaining risk for TL should be considered using risk-adopted SPT allocation