Prevention of internal bacterial colonization of dental implants: A comparative longitudinal observational study.

OBJECTIVES Previous studies have indicated a progressive internal bacterial colonization of implants and possible implications for peri-implant bone loss. The aim of this study was to evaluate a decontamination protocol, two disinfectants, and a sealant for their ability to prevent such a colonization. MATERIALS AND METHODS Bacterial samples were harvested from the peri-implant sulcus (external) and following abutment removal from the implant cavity (internal) during routine supportive peri-implant care in 30 edentulous patients 2 years after they had obtained two implants. In a split-mouth design, implants were randomly assigned to receive either internal decontamination alone (10% H2 O2 , brush) or additional placement of either sealant (GS), disinfectant agent (CHX-varnish) or disinfectant gel (1% CHX-gel), in the internal cavity before remounting of abutment/suprastructure. Twelve months later, internal and external sampling was repeated. Total bacterial counts (TBCs) were determined using real-time PCR in a total of 240 samples (eight per patient). RESULTS Total bacterial counts in the internal cavity significantly reduced overall treatment modalities 1 year after the treatments (4.0 [2.3-6.9]-fold reduction; p = .000). No significant differences between the four treatment types were found (p = .348). Comparison of internal and external sampling points revealed significant correlation (R2  = .366; p = .000) with systematically higher TBC counts in external samples. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that the use of disinfectant agents or a sealant did not show an additional benefit in the prevention of internal bacterial colonization of implants compared to a decontamination protocol alone

One-Year Clinical, Microbiological and Immunological Results of Local Doxycycline or Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy for Recurrent/Persisting Periodontal Pockets: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

We evaluated, in this study, the clinical, microbiological and immunological effects of local drug delivery (LDD) or photodynamic therapy (PDT), adjunctive to subgingival instrumentation (SI) in persistent or recurrent periodontal pockets in patients enrolled in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) after one year. A total of 105 patients enrolled in SPT with persistent/recurrent pockets were randomly treated with SI +PDT or SI + LDD or SI (control). The number of treated sites with bleeding on probing (n BOP+), probing pocket depths (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores (gingival bleeding index, %bleeding on probing-BOP) was evaluated at baseline and after 12 months. Additionally, eight periodontopathogens and the immunomarkers IL-1β (interleukin)and MMP-8 (matrix metalloprotease) were quantitatively determined using real-time PCR and ELISA, respectively. All three treatments resulted in statistically significant clinical improvements (p < 0.05) without statistically significant intergroup differences (p > 0.05), which were maintained up to 12 months. The presence of BOP negatively affected the PPD and CAL. Moreover, statistically significantly fewer bleeding sites at 12 months were observed in the test groups (p = 0.049). Several periodontopathogens were reduced after 12 months. In conclusion, the present data indicate that in periodontal patients enrolled in SPT, treatment of persistent/recurrent pockets with SI alone or combined with either PDT or LDD may lead to comparable clinical, microbiological and immunological improvements, which are maintained up to 12 months. Secondly, the presence of BOP directly impacts the PPD and CAL

Internal bacterial colonization of implants: association with peri-implant bone loss

OBJECTIVES The aim of the present longitudinal study was to investigate bacterial colonization of the internal implant cavity and to evaluate a possible association with peri-implant bone loss. METHODS A total of 264 paper point samples were harvested from the intra-implant cavity of 66 implants in 26 patients immediately following implant insertion and after 3, 4, and 12 months. Samples were evaluated for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia as well as total bacterial counts by real-time PCR. Bone loss was evaluated on standardized radiographs up to 25 months after implant insertion. For the statistical analysis of the data, mixed effects models were fitted. RESULTS There was an increase in the frequency of detection as well as in the mean counts of the selected bacteria over time. The evaluation of the target bacteria revealed a significant association of Pr. intermedia at 4 and 12 months with peri-implant bone loss at 25 months (4 months: P = 0.009; 12 months: P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS The present study could demonstrate a progressive colonization by periodontopathogenic bacteria in the internal cavities of two-piece implants. The results suggest that internal colonization with Pr. intermedia was associated with peri-implant bone loss

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for chronic periodontitis in adults.

Periodontitis is chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Mild to moderate periodontitis affects up to 50% of adults. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing. In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced: full-mouth scaling (FMS) and full-mouth disinfection (FMD), which is scaling plus use of an antiseptic. This review updates our previous review of full-mouth treatment modalities, which was published in 2008

Assessment of root curvature and distance using computed tomography.

The safety and efficacy of subgingival root surface instrumentation may be enhanced by optimized adaptation between instrument and treated surface. Thus, detailed knowledge of root geometry may allow advances in instrument design. The aim of this study was therefore to measure root radii of various tooth types as well as distances between tooth roots using computed tomography. Two hundred sixteen teeth in eight patients were studied, with cross sections of teeth at the level of the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) being regarded as ellipses. The maximum radii of ellipses were calculated and averaged for each tooth surface within various tooth groups. In addition, the spacing between roots at CEJ level and 5 mm below the CEJ was measured. Mean radii varied from 1.09+/-0.50 mm (lower incisor, lingual) to 13.7+/-0.96 mm (upper molar, mesial). Radii of 1 mm to 6 mm were most frequently found at buccal, palatal, and lingual surfaces, whereas the majority of radii were between 2 mm and 11 mm at mesial and distal sites. Root distance varied between 1.04+/-0.49 mm (lower incisors, CEJ level) and 2.81+/-1.70 mm (lower molars, 5 mm below CEJ). The curvature of an instrument for root surface instrumentation should correspond to a radius of at least 11 mm to achieve maximum adaptation to the treated surface, and the width of the working end should be less than 1 mm to allow sufficient interdental instrumentation.link_to_subscribed_fulltex

Open or submerged healing of implants with platform switching: a randomized, controlled clinical trial

The temporal pattern of bone-level alterations in conventionally restored implants is dependent upon healing mode (open or submerged). This study examined the influence of healing on marginal bone levels at implants with a medium-rough surface including the implant collar and a clearance-fit implant-abutment connection restored according to a platform-switching concept

Er:YAG laser treatment in supportive periodontal therapy

To assess clinical and microbiological outcomes of an Er:YAG laser in comparison with sonic debridement in the treatment of persistent periodontal pockets in a prospective randomized controlled multicentre study design