Surgical peri-implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment. Materials and Methods: Forty participants, with peri-implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change. Results: All 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12-month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro-intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines. Conclusion: Similar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups. Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017)

Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA-a tool for preventing peri-implant disease.

OBJECTIVE This treatment concept paper introduces a risk assessment tool, the Implant Disease Risk Assessment, (IDRA) which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS The functional risk assessment diagram was constructed incorporating eight parameters, each with documented evidence for an association with peri-implantitis. RESULTS The eight vectors of the diagram include (1) assessment of a history of periodontitis (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) (3) number of teeth/implants with probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm (4) the ratio of periodontal bone loss (evaluated from a radiograph) divided by the patient's age (5) periodontitis susceptibility as described by the staging and grading categories from the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (Journal of Periodontology, 89 Suppl 1, S159-S172, 2018) (6) the frequency/compliance with supportive periodontal therapy (7) the distance in mm from the restorative margin of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest and (8) prosthesis-related factors including cleanability and fit of the implant-supported prosthesis. CONCLUSION The combination of these factors in a risk assessment tool, IDRA, may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for development of peri-implantitis

Peri-implant mucositis.

OBJECTIVES This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis. METHODS A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. FINDINGS Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. CONCLUSIONS Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis

Supportive peri-implant therapy following anti-infective surgical peri-implantitis treatment: 5-year survival and success

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra- and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of peri-implant bone loss. RESULTS: Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria. At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period

Supportive peri-implant therapy following anti-infective surgical peri-implantitis treatment: 5-year survival and success

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra- and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) >/= 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of peri-implant bone loss. RESULTS: Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria. At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period

Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding risk factors in implant therapy

Link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Evaluation of the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A retrospective study in patients with treated periodontitis and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

AIM To evaluate the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) tool for the prediction of peri-implantitis in treated periodontitis patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after at least 5 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS From the patient pool of implant patients enrolled in a regular supportive periodontal therapy programme (SPT) for at least 5 years, 239 patients were screened. Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent evaluation through the criteria of the IDRA tool. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including 95% confidence intervals were estimated. RESULTS Seventy-nine patients (43 males and 36 females, 8 smokers), aged on average 59.0 years (range: 40-79 years) at baseline (i.e. FDP delivery) were analysed. The calculated IDRA-risk was in 34 patients (42.5%) a moderate risk, while 45 patients (56.3%) were considered at high IDRA-risk. One patient categorized at low IDRA-risk was excluded from the analysis. The AUC was 0.613 (95% CI: 0.464-0.762) if the IDRA-risk was associated with prevalence of peri-implantitis at the most recent follow-up. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 4 patients (12%) at moderate and in 12 patients (27%) at high IDRA-risk, respectively. The calculated odds ratio for developing peri-implantitis in patients with high IDRA-risk compared with patients with moderate IDRA-risk was 2.727 with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.793-9.376). CONCLUSION Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, the IDRA algorithm might represent a promising tool to assess patients at moderate or high risk of developing peri-implantitis

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications

Occurrence, associated factors and soft tissue reconstructive therapy for buccal soft tissue dehiscence at dental implants: Consensus report of group 3 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations