Impact of Smoking Habit on Peri-Implant Indicators following Different Therapies: A Systematic Review

Peri-implant disease and its treatment is becoming a major concern for clinicians as the number of implants placed each year is rising. Smoking is a common habit, and it is associated with an increased risk of developing peri-implant disease. The role of smoking in the response to peri-implant treatment has never been investigated. Searches were conducted in electronic databases to screen articles published until August 2021. The included studies had at least two groups of patients: peri-implant disease only or peri-implant disease and smoking status. Outcomes of interest included plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BoP), radiographic crestal bone loss (CBL), and analysis of peri-implant sulcular fluid. Seven hundred and forty-nine articles were found in the databases, only 71 articles potentially qualified. A total of seven studies with a minimum follow-up of six months were included. There is no homogeneity in the diagnosis, smoker definition and treatment proposed. All surgical and non-surgical treatment have statistically significantly different outcomes in smokers and nonsmokers. Recognizing this study's limitations, we conclude that smoking might play a significant role on the outcome of peri-implant disease treatment. None of the proposed treatments appear to be significantly more effective

Cytokines and Peri-Implant Disease

The aim of this review was to summarize data from studies making inquiries on levels of the cytokines in pathogenesis of peri-implant diseases. Here we reviewed the recent developments on IL-1β, IL-10, IL-17, IL-21, and IL-33. We highlighted recent advances during the last few years in this area and discussed their roles in immune regulation in patients with peri-implant disease.Our results revealed that identifying the levels of these cytokines (IL-1β, IL-10, IL-17, IL-21, and IL-33) may help to predict the diagnosis of periimplant diseases. From a safety perspective, this study emphasized the need to consider the impact of these interleukin on peri-implant diseases

Repeatedly Applied Peptide Film Kills Bacteria on Dental Implants

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11837-019-03334-w.The rising use of titanium dental implants has increased the prevalence of peri-implant disease that shortens their useful life. A growing view of peri-implant disease suggests that plaque accumulation and microbiome dysbiogenesis trigger a host immune inflammatory response that destroys soft and hard tissues supporting the implant. The incidence of peri-implant disease is difficult to estimate, but with over 3 million implants placed in the USA alone, and the market growing by 500,000 implants/year, such extensive use demands additional interceptive approaches. We report a water-based, nonsurgical approach to address peri-implant disease using a bifunctional peptide film, which can be applied during initial implant placement and later reapplied to existing implants to reduce bacterial growth. Bifunctional peptides are based upon a titanium binding peptide (TiBP) optimally linked by a spacer peptide to an antimicrobial peptide (AMP). We show herein that dental implant surfaces covered with a bifunctional peptide film kill bacteria. Further, using a simple protocol for cleaning implant surfaces fouled by bacteria, the surface can be effectively recoated with TiBP-AMP to regain an antimicrobial state. Fouling, cleansing, and rebinding was confirmed for up to four cycles with minimal loss of binding efficacy. After fouling, rebinding with a water-based peptide film extends control over the oral microbiome composition, providing a novel nonsurgical treatment for dental implants

A prognostic model for the outcome of Nobel Biocare Dental Implants with peri-Implant disease after one year

© 2019 by the Authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Background: This investigation, based on a 1-year retrospective cohort study, aimed to estimate and validate a prognostic model for ailing and failing implants due to peri-implant disease. Methods: A total of 240 patients (male: 97; female: 143; average age of 57.3 years) with at least one ailing or failing implant were included: 120 patients for model derivation and 120 patients for model validation. The primary outcome measure was the implant status: success, defined as the arrest of the disease, or failure defined as implant extraction, prevalence or re-incidence of peri-implant disease). Potential prognostic risk indicators were collected at the baseline evaluation. The relative risk (RR) was estimated for the predictors through logistic regression and the c-statistic (95% confidence interval) was calculated for both derivation and validation sets. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: The risk model retrieved the prognostic factors age (RR = 1.04), history of Periodontitis (RR = 3.13), severe peri-implant disease status (RR = 3.26), implant length (RR = 3.52), early disease development (RR = 3.99), with good discrimination in both the derivation set (0.763 [0.679; 0.847]) and validation set (0.709 [0.616; 0.803]). Conclusions: A prognostic risk model for estimating the outcome of implants with peri-implant disease is available, with a good performance considering the c-statistic evaluation.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Initial Treatment of Peri-implant Disease

In 1952 Per-Ingvar Brånemark discovered the potential of titanium’s ability to bond to bone. In 1977 he introduced the concept of the titanium dental implant. Since Dr. Brånemark’s discovery the titanium dental implant has revolutionized dentistry, providing treatment options from single tooth to full arch replacement. Implants provide a service to our patients that have the potential to be life changing both functionally and aesthetically. Unfortunately, this progress is lost when dental implants fail, causing emotional and financial distress to the patient. One of the complications that can lead to implant failure is peri-implant disease. Thus far the literature has shown that non-surgical treatment significantly reduces BOP at peri-implant disease sites. Although, complete disease resolution is not commonly observed following therapy. In light of the possible peri-implant disease etiologies of bacterial plaque and foreign material, a peri-implant sulcular debridement via sulcular curettage appears prudent and has been rarely studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of sulcular debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation at peri-implant disease sites. All implants included in the study were either diagnosed as having peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. Implants will be randomly assigned to two different groups. Group 1 implants initially received debridement of the peri-implant sulcus. While Group 2 implants received sulcular irrigation with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate. Four weeks following initial treatment patients from both groups were re-evaluated and measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). Group 1 patients received sulcular irrigation with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, while Group 2 patients received debridement of the peri-implant sulcus. Four weeks following administration of crossover treatment patients were re-evaluated and measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). 8 weeks following administration of crossover treatment measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). When comparing the treatment of sulcular debridement to chlorhexidine irrigation (0.08mm, 0%), sulcular debridement (0.73mm, 22%) had greater reductions in PD and BOP, although neither group seemed to make clinically significant reductions. Following the completion of both treatments at 3 months peri-implant mucositis PD improved by 0.58mm, while peri-implantitis PD improved by 0.64mm. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis BOP reduced by 56% and 12.5%, respectively.

The Initial Treatment of Peri-implant Disease

In 1952 Per-Ingvar Brånemark discovered the potential of titanium’s ability to bond to bone. In 1977 he introduced the concept of the titanium dental implant. Since Dr. Brånemark’s discovery the titanium dental implant has revolutionized dentistry, providing treatment options from single tooth to full arch replacement. Implants provide a service to our patients that have the potential to be life changing both functionally and aesthetically. Unfortunately, this progress is lost when dental implants fail, causing emotional and financial distress to the patient. One of the complications that can lead to implant failure is peri-implant disease. Thus far the literature has shown that non-surgical treatment significantly reduces BOP at peri-implant disease sites. Although, complete disease resolution is not commonly observed following therapy. In light of the possible peri-implant disease etiologies of bacterial plaque and foreign material, a peri-implant sulcular debridement via sulcular curettage appears prudent and has been rarely studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of sulcular debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation at peri-implant disease sites. All implants included in the study were either diagnosed as having peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. Implants will be randomly assigned to two different groups. Group 1 implants initially received debridement of the peri-implant sulcus. While Group 2 implants received sulcular irrigation with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate. Four weeks following initial treatment patients from both groups were re-evaluated and measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). Group 1 patients received sulcular irrigation with 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate, while Group 2 patients received debridement of the peri-implant sulcus. Four weeks following administration of crossover treatment patients were re-evaluated and measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). 8 weeks following administration of crossover treatment measurements were recorded (PD, BOP, Suppuration, GI). When comparing the treatment of sulcular debridement to chlorhexidine irrigation (0.08mm, 0%), sulcular debridement (0.73mm, 22%) had greater reductions in PD and BOP, although neither group seemed to make clinically significant reductions. Following the completion of both treatments at 3 months peri-implant mucositis PD improved by 0.58mm, while peri-implantitis PD improved by 0.64mm. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis BOP reduced by 56% and 12.5%, respectively.

Peri-implantite e mucosite peri-implantar. Fatores de risco, diagnóstico e tratamento.

Introduction: The aim of this paper is to deepen the knowledge of peri-implant disease and existing treatments described in the literature. Material and methods: Literature review of peri-implant disease based on a search in databases like PubMed and Medline using keywords "periimplantitis, mucositis, tabaquism, oral microbiota, occlusal overload, surgical treatment, antimicrobial therapy, detoxification, regenerative therapy, bone defects". Development and discussion: Analysis of risk factors, diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant disease. Conclusions: Factors such as tabaquism or a history of periodontitis, along with poor oral hygiene are the main causes of peri-implant disease. A correct diagnosis of the cause and the appropriate choice of therapy may stop the progression of peri-implant disease. Following treatment done, it will be very important to do the periodic controls and maintenance of proper oral hygiene.Introdução: O objetivo deste trabalho é aprofundar o conhecimento da doença peri-implantar e os tratamentos existentes descritos na literatura. Material e método: Revisão bibliográfica das doenças peri-implantares, com base em uma pesquisa nos indexadores Pubmed, Medline e Cochrane Library, utilizando os uni termos " peri-implantite, mucosite, dependência de tabaco, microbiota oral, sobrecarga oclusal, tratamento cirúrgico, terapia antimicrobiana, desintoxicação,  terapia regenerativa, defeitos ósseos ". Desenvolvimento e discussão: Análise de fatores de risco, diagnóstico e tratamento de doenças peri-implantares. Conclusões: Fatores como tabaco ou histórico de periodontite, juntamente com falta de higiene bucal, são as principais causas da doença peri-implantar. Um diagnóstico correto da etiologia, bem como a escolha apropriada da terapêutica, pode interromper o avanço da doença peri-implantar. Após o tratamento realizado, será muito importante o monitoramento e manutenção regulares da higiene bucal adequada

Peri-implant disease: What we know and what we need to know

Peri-implant disease is a serious problem that plagues today's dentistry, both in terms of therapy and epidemiology. With the expansion of the practice of implantology and an increasing number of implants placed annually, the frequency of peri-implant disease has greatly expanded. Its clinical manifestations, in the absence of a globally established classification, are peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, the counterparts of gingivitis and periodontitis, respectively. However, many doubts remain about its features. Official diagnostic criteria, globally recognized by the dental community, have not yet been introduced. The latest studies using metagenomic methods are casting doubt on the assumption of microbial equivalence between periodontal and peri-implant crevices. Research on most of the features of periimplant disease remains at an early stage; moreover, there is not a commonly accepted treatment for it. In any case, although the evidence so far collected is limited, we need to be aware of the current state of the science regarding this topic to better understand and ultimately prevent this disease

Peri-implant diseases: Consensus Report of the Sixth European Workshop on Periodontology

Issues related to peri-implant disease were discussed. It was observed that the most common lesions that occur, i.e. peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are caused by bacteria. While the lesion of peri-implant mucositis resides in the soft tissues, peri-implantitis also affects the supporting bone. Peri-implant mucositis occurs in about 80% of subjects (50% of sites) restored with implants, and peri-implantitis in between 28% and 56% of subjects (12-40% of sites). A number of risk indicators were identified including (i) poor oral hygiene, (ii) a history of periodontitis, (iii) diabetes and (iv) smoking. It was concluded that the treatment of peri-implant disease must include anti-infective measures. With respect to peri-implant mucositis, it appeared that non-surgical mechanical therapy caused the reduction in inflammation (bleeding on probing) but also that the adjunctive use of antimicrobial mouthrinses had a positive effect. It was agreed that the outcome of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was unpredictable. The primary objective of surgical treatment in peri-implantitis is to get access to the implant surface for debridement and decontamination in order to achieve resolution of the inflammatory lesion. There was limited evidence that such treatment with the adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics could resolve a number of peri-implantitis lesions. There was no evidence that so-called regenerative procedures had additional beneficial effects on treatment outcome

A review on the prevention of inflammatory periimplant diseases

Background: An impressive number of dental implants are inserted worldwide. Evolution in dental implants and simplification of surgical techniques allowed a significant increase in the number of dentists involved in implant surgery. Most of them are general dentists, are not always sufficiently formed and experienced, frequently use low-quality implants, do not adopt the proper patient selective criteria, do not adequately monitor and maintain the inserted implants, and do not report their own statistics to the dental community. Consequently, the incidence of inflammatory periimplant diseases (IPDs) has progressively increased to values significantly higher than those previously indicated by the scientific literature. Materials and Methods: Two main literature searches were undertaken in October 2018 in the PubMed Website database. Only articles written in English and published from 2008 onward were considered; 'Clinical Trial,' 'Meta analysis,' 'Observational study,' 'Review,' and 'Validation study' were selected as article type filters. The following keywords were used in the searches: 'Peri implantitis prevention' and 'Dental implant failure prevention.'Results: Preventive measures are analyzed according to the different factors that can favor the occurrence of an infection. The factors are divided into (i) implant dependent, (ii) patient dependent, and (iii) surgeon dependent. Conclusions: Scientific and clinical data confirm that when materials are selected with care, patients are carefully evaluated for factors of risk and attitude to adhere to the necessary maintenance program, and operative protocols and maintenance programs are respected dental implants can be attractive and effective tools for oral rehabilitation. Nevertheless, dentists and patients should have greater awareness that in many cases the decision to utilize dental implants cannot be taken lightly