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

Impact of simultaneous placement of implant and block bone graft substitute: an in vivo peri-implant defect model

Background Insufficient bone volume around an implant is a common obstacle when dental implant treatment is considered. Limited vertical or horizontal bone dimensions may lead to exposed implant threads following placement or a gap between the bone and implant. This is often addressed by bone augmentation procedures prior to or at the time of implant placement. This study evaluated bone healing when a synthetic TiO2 block scaffold was placed in circumferential peri-implant defects with buccal fenestrations. Methods The mandibular premolars were extracted and the alveolar bone left to heal for 4 weeks prior to implant placement in six minipigs. Two cylindrical defects were created in each hemi-mandible and were subsequent to implant placement allocated to treatment with either TiO2 scaffold or sham in a split mouth design. After 12 weeks of healing time, the samples were harvested. Microcomputed tomography (MicroCT) was used to investigate defect fill and integrity of the block scaffold. Distances from implant to bone in vertical and horizontal directions, percentage of bone to implant contact and defect fill were analysed by histology. Results MicroCT analysis demonstrated no differences between the groups for defect fill. Three of twelve scaffolds were partly fractured. At the buccal sites, histomorphometric analysis demonstrated higher bone fraction, higher percentage bone to implant contact and shorter distance from implant top to bone 0.5 mm lateral to implant surface in sham group as compared to the TiO2 group. Conclusions This study demonstrated less bone formation with the use of TiO2 scaffold block in combination with implant placement in cylindrical defects with buccal bone fenestrations, as compared to sham sites