Prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases—The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline

Background: The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of stages I–IV periodontitis provided evidence-based recommendations for treating periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Peri-implant diseases were also re-defined in the 2018 classification. It is well established that both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are highly prevalent. In addition, peri-implantitis is particularly challenging to manage and is accompanied by significant morbidity. Aim: To develop an S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases, focusing on the implementation of interdisciplinary approaches required to prevent the development of peri-implant diseases or their recurrence, and to treat/rehabilitate patients with dental implants following the development of peri-implant diseases. Materials and Methods: This S3 level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology, following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, formulation of specific recommendations, and a structured consensus process involving leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases culminated in the recommendation for implementation of various different interventions before, during and after implant placement/loading. Prevention of peri-implant diseases should commence when dental implants are planned, surgically placed and prosthetically loaded. Once the implants are loaded and in function, a supportive peri-implant care programme should be structured, including periodical assessment of peri-implant tissue health. If peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis are detected, appropriate treatments for their management must be rendered. Conclusion: The present S3 level CPG informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers and, indirectly, the public on the available and most effective modalities to maintain healthy peri-implant tissues, and to manage peri-implant diseases, according to the available evidence at the time of publication

Treatment of stage I-III periodontitis-The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline

Background: The recently introduced 2017 World Workshop on the classification of periodontitis, incorporating stages and grades of disease, aims to link disease classification with approaches to prevention and treatment, as it describes not only disease severity and extent but also the degree of complexity and an individual's risk. There is, therefore, a need for evidence-based clinical guidelines providing recommendations to treat periodontitis. Aim: The objective of the current project was to develop a S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the treatment of Stage I–III periodontitis. Material and Methods: This S3 CPG was developed under the auspices of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), following the methodological guidance of the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). The rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 15 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, the formulation of specific recommendations and consensus, on those recommendations, by leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 CPG approaches the treatment of periodontitis (stages I, II and III) using a pre-established stepwise approach to therapy that, depending on the disease stage, should be incremental, each including different interventions. Consensus was achieved on recommendations covering different interventions, aimed at (a) behavioural changes, supragingival biofilm, gingival inflammation and risk factor control; (b) supra- and sub-gingival instrumentation, with and without adjunctive therapies; (c) different types of periodontal surgical interventions; and (d) the necessary supportive periodontal care to extend benefits over time. Conclusion: This S3 guideline informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers and, indirectly, the public on the available and most effective modalities to treat periodontitis and to maintain a healthy dentition for a lifetime, according to the available evidence at the time of publication

Supportive periodontal therapy of furcation sites: Non-surgical instrumentation with or without topical doxycycline

Objectives: Evaluation of the clinical effect of topical subgingival application of doxycycline gel adjunctively to scaling and root planing (SRP) at furcation sites during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Material and Methods: In 39 SPT patients exhibiting at least four pockets ≥5 mm with bleeding on probing, SRP was rendered in all pockets ≥4 mm. Additionally, 14% doxycycline gel was applied subgingivally in 20 patients after random assignment (SRP&DOXY). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months after therapy. Additional benefit of topical doxycycline was evaluated as a short-term (3 months) improvement of furcation involvement and influence on the frequency of re-instrumentation up to 12 months. Results: A total of 323 furcation sites (class 0: 160; class I: 101; class II: 18; and class III: 44) were treated (SRP: 165, SRP&DOXY: 158). SRP&DOXY resulted in better improvement of furcation involvement than SRP alone 3 months after treatment (p=0.041). However, SRP&DOXY failed to show a significant difference between both groups in the number of re-instrumentations. Conclusion: Single subgingival application of doxycycline in addition to SRP had a short-term effect on furcation involvement. However, it failed to reduce the frequency of re-instrumentation up to 12 months at furcation sites. © 2009 John Wiley & Sons AS. Journal compilation © 2009 John Wiley & Sons AS.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Tooth loss in aggressive periodontitis after active periodontal therapy: Patient-related and tooth-related prognostic factors.

To assess prognostic factors for tooth loss after active periodontal therapy (APT) in patients with aggressive periodontitis (AgP) at tooth level.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients with AgP were re-evaluated after a mean period of 10.5 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Two thousand and fifty-four teeth were entered into the model. The tooth-related factors including baseline bone loss, tooth location and type, furcation involvement (FI), regenerative therapy, and abutment status, as well as time of follow-up and other patient-related factors were tested for their prognostic value at tooth level. Multilevel regression analysis was performed for statistical analysis to identify factors contributing to tooth loss. RESULTS: During SPT, 113 teeth (1.34 teeth per patient) were lost. Baseline bone loss, use as abutment tooth, tooth type, and maxillary location contributed significantly to tooth loss during SPT. Molars showed the highest risk for tooth loss after APT. Moreover, time of follow-up and the patient-related factor "educational status" significantly accounted for tooth loss at tooth level. CONCLUSION: Baseline bone loss, abutment status, tooth location, and type as well as time of follow-up and educational status were detected as prognostic factors for tooth loss during SPT in patients with AgP at tooth level