Diagnostic methods/parameters to monitor peri-implant conditions.

The diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters, including visual inspection and probing to monitor peri-implant conditions, has been regarded with skepticism. Scientific evidence pointed out that primary diagnostic tools (chairside) seem to be highly specific, while their sensitivity is lower compared with their use in monitoring periodontal stability. Nonetheless, given the association between pocket depth at teeth and implant sites and the aerobic/anaerobic nature of the microbiome, it seems plausible for pocket probing depth to be indicative of disease progression or tissue stability. In addition, understanding the inflammatory nature of peri-implant diseases, it seems reasonable to advocate that bleeding, erythema, ulceration, and suppuration might be reliable indicators of pathology. Nevertheless, single spots of bleeding on probing may not reflect peri-implant disease, since implants are prone to exhibit bleeding related to probing force. On the other side, bleeding in smokers lacks sensitivity owing to the decreased angiogenic activity. Hence, the use of dichotomous scales on bleeding in the general population, in contrast to indices that feature profuseness and time after probing, might lead to false positive diagnoses. The definitive distinction between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, though, relies upon the radiographic evidence of progressive bone loss that can be assessed by means of two- and three-dimensional methods. Accordingly, the objective of this review is to evaluate the existing clinical and radiographic parameters/methods to monitor peri-implant conditions

Survival and complication rates of tooth- and implant-supported restorations after an observation period up to 36 years.

BACKGROUND Tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are well-documented and aesthetic treatment alternatives, and after a comprehensive periodontal treatment, a protocol with a good long-term prognosis if the maintenance program is strictly followed. AIM To reexamine a pre-existing patient cohort in order to obtain estimated long-term survival and complication outcomes of fixed dental prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS For this study, patients treated with fixed dental prostheses between 1978 and 2002 were reexamined between 2019 and 2020. The restorations were divided in single crowns and fixed dental prostheses supported by teeth (TSC, FPTDP) and implants (ISC, FPIDP). Survival and complication rates were obtained. Kaplan-Meier functions were used to model complication probabilities, and average hazard ratios of different strata were compared using weighted Cox regression. RESULTS The mean observation time of 40 patients and 223 reconstructions was 20.3 (±9.7, 1.2-36.2) years. The estimated survival rates were 84% (CI: 77%-92%) for TSC, 63% (CI: 51%-79%) for FPTDP, 87% (CI: 71%-100%) for ISC, and 64% (CI: 34%-100%) for FPIDP after 25 years. Biological complications included carious lesions (10.6%), periodontitis (7.9%), and peri-implantitis (6.8%). Technical complications included chipping (20.2%) and loss of retention (10.8%). CONCLUSION Biological complications lead to abutment loss in more than two-thirds of cases, regardless of the type of abutment (tooth or implant). Technical complications are less associated with abutment loss than biological complications

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study.

AIM To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP). MATERIAL AND METHODS The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme. RESULTS Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss

Enamel matrix derivative as adjunctive to non-surgical periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES To assess the potential additional benefit of the local application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the clinical outcomes following non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) (steps 1 and 2 periodontal therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature search was performed in several electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Register of Central Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, and grey literature. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Clinical attachment level (CAL) change (primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions (secondary outcomes) were evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the included trials. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between test and control sites were estimated using a random-effect model for amount of mean CAL and PPD change. RESULTS Six RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis, while data from 4 studies were used for meta-analysis. Overall analysis of CAL gain (3 studies) and PPD reduction (4 studies) presented WMD of 0.14 mm (p = 0.74; CI 95% - 0.66; 0.94) and 0.46 mm (p = 0.25; CI 95% - 0.33; 1.26) in favor of NSPT + EMD compared to NSPT alone respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was found to be high in both cases (I2 = 79% and 87%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Within their limitations, the present data indicate that the local application of EMD does not lead to additional clinical benefits after 3 to 12 months when used as an adjunctive to NSPT. However, due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, additional well-designed RCTs are needed to provide further evidence on this clinical indication for the use of EMD. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The adjunctive use of EMD to NSPT does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcomes obtained with NSPT alone

Adjunctive laser or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in patients with untreated periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two focused questions were addressed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria as follows: in patients with untreated periodontitis, i) does laser application provide adjunctive effects on probing pocket depth (PPD) changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? and ii) does application of aPDT provide adjunctive effects on PPD changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Results of the meta-analysis are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS Out of 1'202 records, 10 articles for adjunctive laser and 8 for adjunctive aPDT were included. With respect to PPD changes, 1 meta-analysis including 2 articles (total n = 42; split-mouth design) failed to identify a statistically significant difference (WMD = 0.35 mm; 95%CI:-0.04/0.73; p = .08) in favour of adjunctive aPDT (wavelength range 650-700 nm). In terms of adjunctive laser application a high variability of clinical outcomes at 6 months was noted. Two articles included patient-reported outcomes and 10 reported on the presence/absence of harms/adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS Available evidence on adjunctive therapy with lasers and aPDT is limited by (i) the low number of controlled studies and (ii) the heterogeneity of study designs. Patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated

Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses.

Dental implants have become a mainstream treatment approach in daily practice, and because of their high survival rates over time, they have become the preferred treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation in many situations. Despite the relatively high predictability of implant therapy and high costs to patients, patient perceptions of success and patient-reported outcome measures have become increasingly significant in implant dentistry. Increasing numbers of publications deal with oral health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcome measures. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the available evidence on oral health-related quality of life of fully and partially dentate patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. A comprehensive electronic search was performed on publications in English up to 2021. A selection of standardized questionnaires and scales used for the evaluation of oral health-related quality of life were analyzed and explained. The analysis encompassed three aspects: a functional evaluation of oral health-related quality of life, an esthetic assessment of oral health-related quality of life, and a cost-related evaluation of oral health-related quality of life for rehabilitation with dental implants. The data demonstrated that the preoperative expectations of patients markedly affected the outcomes perceived by the patients. As expected, reconstructions supported by implants substantially improved the stability of conventional dentures and allowed improved function and patient satisfaction. However, from a patient's perspective, oral health-related quality of life was not significantly greater for dental implants compared with conventional tooth-supported prostheses. The connection of the implants to the prostheses with locators or balls indicated high oral health-related quality of life. The data also suggest that patient expectation is not a good predictor of treatment outcome. In terms of esthetic outcomes, the data clearly indicate that patients' perceptions and clinicians' assessments differed, with those of clinicians yielding higher standards. There were no significant differences found between the esthetic oral health-related quality of life ratings for soft tissue-level implants compared with those for bone-level implants. Comparison of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations showed no significant differences in patients' perceptions in terms of esthetic outcomes. Depending on the choice of outcome measure and financial marginal value, supporting a conventional removable partial denture with implants is cost-effective when the patient is willing to invest more to achieve a higher oral health-related quality of life. In conclusion, the oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with implant-supported dental prostheses did not show overall superiority over conventional prosthetics. Clinicians' and patients' evaluations, especially of esthetic outcomes, are, in the majority of cases, incongruent. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes are important in the evaluation of function, esthetics, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with implant-supported dental prostheses, and should be taken into consideration in daily practice

Long-term treatment outcomes of single maxillary buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences: A 10-year prospective study.

INTRODUCTION To evaluate the 10-year clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of shallow isolated peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscences (PSTD) at single tissue level dental implants. METHODS The baseline population included 16 patients (16 implants) displaying an isolated peri-implant maxillary buccal soft-tissue dehiscence. The recipient bed was prepared with a minimally-invasive split-thickness flap limited to the buccal aspect to stabilize the tuberosity connective tissue graft (CTG) onto the periosteum. At the end of treatment, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive peri-implant care (SPC) program. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated on photographs by three clinicians using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS SPC during the 10-years proceeded uneventfully in all patients. A total of 12 patients completed the 10-year examination, as 3 patients dropped-out and 1 implant was lost. Complete PSTD coverage was obtained at 7 implant sites (i.e., 58%) while the mean PSTD coverage amounted to 89.6% ± 17.1% without statistically significant differences between 1 and 10 years (p > 0.05). Stable peri-implant parameters (i.e., PD and BoP) and full-mouth scores (i.e., FMPS, FMBS) were recorded throughout the observation period (p > 0.05). The aesthetic improvements obtained in the short-term were maintained up to 10 years. CONCLUSION Within their limits, the present results indicate that the proposed surgical technique is a simple and reliable treatment option for the treatment of single maxillary buccal PSTDs in selected cases with positive results up to 10 years in patients under regular SPC (NCT04983758-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment)

Clinical periodontal diagnosis.

Periodontal diseases include pathological conditions elicited by the presence of bacterial biofilms leading to a host response. In the diagnostic process, clinical signs such as bleeding on probing, development of periodontal pockets and gingival recessions, furcation involvement and presence of radiographic bone loss should be assessed prior to periodontal therapy, following active therapy, and during long-term supportive care. In addition, patient-reported outcomes such as increased tooth mobility, migration, and tilting should also be considered. More important to the patient, however, is the fact that assessment of signs of periodontal diseases must be followed by an appropriate treatment plan. Furthermore, it should be realized that clinical and radiographic periodontal diagnosis is based on signs which may not reflect the presence of active disease but rather represent the sequelae of a previous bacterial challenge. Hence, the aim of the present review is to provide a summary of clinical and radiographic diagnostic criteria required to classify patients with periodontal health or disease

Marginal bone level changes around dental implants with one or two adjacent teeth - A clinical and radiographic retrospective study with a follow up of at least 10 years.

AIM To compare mean bone level (mBL) changes around dental implants with one or two adjacent teeth after a function time of ≥10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS One hundred thirty three periodontally compromised patients (PCPs) with 551 implants enrolled in supportive periodontal care (SPC) were screened. Implants were categorized either into group TIT (tooth-implant-tooth) or into group TIG (tooth-implant-gap). MBL changes from delivery of restoration (i.e., baseline) to follow-up were calculated in millimeters and compared between implants and adjacent teeth. Survival rates and the need for surgical interventions during SPC were recorded. RESULTS Eighty seven patients with 142 implants were re-evaluated after a mean observation time of 14.5 ± 3.5 years. The mBL at mesial implant sites in the TIT group increased -0.07 ± 0.92 mm and decreased in the TIG group 0.52 ± 1.34 mm, respectively (95% CI: 0.04/1.14, p = .037). At distal implant sites, the mBL in the TIT group increased -0.08 ± 0.84 mm and decreased 0.03 ± 0.87 in the TIG group, respectively (95% CI: -0.20/0.42, p = .48). The overall implant loss rate was 3.5% (n = 5; 2 TIT, 3 TIG), without a statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.18/7.07, p = .892). Tooth loss rates (TIT: 12.3%, TIG: 12.3%) were not statistically significantly different (OR = 1.00, p = .989). CONCLUSION High tooth and implant survival rates were observed in PCPs. The presence of one or two adjacent teeth seemed to have no impact on marginal bone level changes