Repeated delivery of chlorhexidine chips for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A multicenter, randomized, comparative clinical trial

BSP Implementation of Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVES

to adapt the supranational European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline for UK healthcare environment, taking into account a broad range of views from stakeholders and patients.

SOURCES

This UK version, based on the supranational EFP guideline [1] published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, was developed using S3-level methodology, combining assessment of formal evidence from 13 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 55 clinical recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases, based on the classification for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions [2].

METHODOLOGY

The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework, following the S3-process, the underlying evidence was updated and a representative guideline group of 111 delegates from 26 stakeholder organisations was assembled into four working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the UK healthcare community including the public.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The S3-level-guidelines combine evaluation of formal evidence, grading of recommendations and synthesis with clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. The international S3-level-guideline was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system, facilitating a consistent, interdisciplinary, evidence-based approach with public involvement for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with network meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Extensive research has been carried out on the various aspects of diagnosing and treating peri-implantitis. However, clinical guidelines for the management of peri-implantitis based on high quality evidence are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to analyze the current evidence on nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis and synthesize clinical guidelines based on high quality evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451056). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The interventions were ranked according to their efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) system. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The GRADE approach determined a moderate to high level of certainty of evidence. Among the nonsurgical interventions, mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth at 3 months and beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, and clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive topical antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics and photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months. Among surgical interventions, open flap debridement with implant surface decontamination and open flap debridement with decontamination and adjunctive photodynamic therapy were significant in improving probing depth at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics or photodynamic therapy results in improved clinical outcomes.

Etiology, pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implantitis: A European perspective

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants. It is characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and progressive loss of supporting bone. Over the last 30 years, peri-implantitis has become a major disease burden in dentistry. An understanding of the diagnosis, etiology and pathogenesis, epidemiology, and treatment of peri-implantitis must be a central component in undergraduate and postgraduate training programs in dentistry. In view of the strong role of European research in periodontology and implant dentistry, the focus of this review was to address peri-implantitis from a European perspective. One component of the work was to summarize new and reliable data on patients with dental implants to underpin the relevance of peri-implantitis from a population perspective. The nature of the peri-implantitis lesion was evaluated through results presented in preclinical models and evaluations of human biopsy material together with an appraisal of the microbiological characteristics. An overview of strategies and outcomes presented in clinical studies on nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is discussed with a particular focus on end points of therapy and recommendations presented in the S3 level Clinical Practice Guideline for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

The Efficacy of Ten Different Adjunctive Measures in Patients with Nonsurgically Treated Peri-Implant Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of 10 adjunctive measures on non-surgical therapy outcomes for peri-implant disease. Methods: We formulated the study question and keywords following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Randomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Two researchers assessed the quality of included literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data analysis and ranking were performed using Stata 15.0 software. Results: This study, involving 51 pieces of literature and 2660 samples, conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which revealed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) significantly reduced probing pocket depth values in patients with peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 96.3%) and peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 96.7%). In addition, it showed an improvement in bleeding on probing (BOP) values for peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 91.6%). Furthermore, diode lasers improved BOP values for peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 76.5%). Conclusions: According to the NMA results and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), PDT and diode laser outperform other adjuncts in peri-implant disease.

The Effectiveness of the Association of Chlorhexidine with Mechanical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis

(1) Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of combining chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: Articles from 2016 to 2021 included in the PubMed and Scopus databases were analyzed, following the PICOS criteria and the randomized controlled study model that used chlorhexidine in various forms in the treatment of peri-mucositis. According to the established criteria, a limited number of studies were selected. These studies had as their criteria of evaluation for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine, plaque indices, bleeding indices and depth probing indices. Chlorhexidine has been used after mechanical debridement as a solution, with different concentrations of 0.06%/0.12%/0.2% alone or in a concentration of 0.03%, in combination with 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride, as well as in the form of a gel with a concentration of 0.2%. (3) Results: The results were assessed to a placebo or other substances, and showed a significant reduction in the indices with a follow-up period ranging from 3 months to 1 year. (4) Conclusions: The association of chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has a role in reducing inflammation, although a complete remission was not obtained in all cases, and the results were not statistically significantly different from the use of other antiseptics.

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Antibiotics as Adjunctive Therapy in the Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The role of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic therapy, local or systemic, as an adjunctive to the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Primary outcomes were: implant success rate and complications, changes in radiographic bone level, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and peri-implantitis resolution. Six studies were included: two using topical and four systemic antibiotics. Adjunctive local antibiotics improved PPD (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78), BOP (MD = 0.15% (95% CI 0.10, 0.19)) and the success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84). No significant difference in bone level and success rate were found with the use of systemic antibiotics, although they appeared to improve PPD (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and PAL (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive local antibiotics showed improved outcomes in terms of success rate, PPD and BOP, while adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved PPD and PAL only. Peri-implantitis resolution was about 20-30% using adjunctive local antibiotics, whilst it ranged from 2% to 65% with adjunctive systemic antibiotics. Findings are still controversial, since they are based on few studies with high heterogeneity, at the uncertain or high risk of bias and involve few patients. Non-surgical debridement and maintenance periodontal support therapy remain pivotal and the adjunctive use of antibiotics for peri-implantitis cannot be routinely recommended, even considering the increasing concern on antibiotic resistance.

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.

Autologous Platelet Concentrates (APCs) for Hard Tissue Regeneration in Oral Implantology, Sinus Floor Elevation, Peri-Implantitis, Socket Preservation, and Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ): A Literature Review

Simple Summary

Autologous platelet concentrates with high growth factor levels are used in many fields of dentistry. In recent years, the critical role of blood-derived materials in bone and soft tissue engineering has become apparent. After tooth extraction, the alveolar bone is exposed to progressive bone resorption, which can lead to difficulties in implant placement. Hence, many studies have demonstrated that APCs have the potential for soft tissue and bone regeneration. Furthermore, no inflammatory reactions occur, and they may be used alone or in combination with bone grafts, promoting bone growth and maturation. Moreover, the released growth factors and the presence of fibrin structures can induce osteogenesis. This review aims to provide information regarding the applications, indications, advantages, and disadvantages of three APC techniques in hard tissue regeneration.

Abstract

Over recent years, the usage of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) has risen in hard tissue regeneration and oral implantology. The purpose of the present review is to offer an overview of the use of three APC techniques in dentistry: platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and concentrated growth factor (CGF). A narrative summary of articles published between January 2011 and April 2022 is provided. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase databases were used to conduct the search. The following keywords were used in the preliminary: “VEGF”, “TGF-b1”, “PRP”, “PRF”, “CGF”, AND “sinus augmentation” OR “implants” OR “peri-implantitis” OR “socket preservation” OR “MRONJ”. A total of 82 articles was finally included. The review then takes into account the application of the three techniques in different areas of treatment—including oral implantology, sinus floor elevation, peri-implantitis, socket preservation, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ)—as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

Chlorhexidine in Dentistry: Pharmacology, Uses, and Adverse Effects

Objectives

The aim of this work was to review the current uses of chlorhexidine (CHX) in dentistry based on its mechanism of action, whilst highlighting the most effective protocols that render the highest clinical efficacy whilst limiting adverse drug reactions.

Methods

A literature search was conducted using the key words chlorhexidine, mechanism of action, adverse effects, and dentistry using databases in the University of Toronto library system. The titles and abstracts were read, and relevant articles were selected.

Results

A total of 1100 publications were identified, 100 were investigated, and 67 of them were used. Out of the 67 selected articles, 12 were reviews on CHX; 5 articles focussed on CHX gels; 13 focussed on CHX mouthwashes; 8 focussed on CHX products; 13 discussed adverse effects associated with CHX; 13 focussed on periodontal pathology and treatment; 6 focussed on implant periodontal and dental surgeries; 7 evaluated effects on caries; 6 looked at the mechanisms of action; and 12 focussed on the antibacterial and antimicrobial impact on the oral biome. There were multiple areas of overlap amongst the articles, and results showed that CHX provides different uses, but mainly as an adjunct to various treatments. Mouthwash was the most superior medium when used in short time spans when mechanical prophylaxis was not possible for the prevention of gingivitis and maintenance of oral hygiene. CHX products are often used in periodontics, post–oral surgical procedures, and as a prophylaxis for multiple invasive procedures with minimal adverse effects. Tooth staining was the most negative adverse effect reported by patients.

Conclusions

CHX's antimicrobial properties make it an ideal prophylactic when mechanical debridement is not possible. CHX mouthwash appears to be more effective compared to gels. Concentrations of 0.12% to 0.2% are recommended; any mouthwash with concentrations above 0.2% will unnecessarily increase the unwanted side effects. CHX is useful amongst various areas of dentistry including oral surgery, periodontics, and even general dentistry. For long-term treatments, especially in periodontitis patients (stage I-III) undergoing nonsurgical treatments, CHX chips are recommended. CHX chips are also recommended as an adjunct to implant debridement in patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis over CHX mouthwash and gels.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.

Results

Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x.

Assessment of Disinfection Potential of Q-Switch Nd: YAG Laser on Contaminated Titanium Implant Surfaces

Peri-implantitis (PI) is a relatively frequent pathology that compromises the overall survival of the dental implant. Adjunctive approaches for the conventional mechanical debridement are being suggested to optimize the treatment of PI. The goal of the study was the assessment of the disinfection potential of the Q-Switch Nd: YAG laser on contaminated titanium implant surfaces. A total of 72 sterile titanium discs were used and divided into three groups: 24 contaminated titanium discs treated with the laser (study Group L), 24 contaminated titanium discs with no treatment (control 1—Group C), and 24 sterile titanium discs with no treatment (control 2—Group S). Multi-species biofilm was used: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus sobrinus, and Prevotella intermedia. Commensal bacteria were included also: Actinomyces naeslundii, Actinomyces viscosus, Streptococcus cristatus, Streptococcus gordonii, Streptococcus mitis, Streptococcus oralis, Streptococcus sanguinis, Streptococcus parasanguinis, and Veillonella parvula. Parameters delivered per pulse on the targeted surfaces of the titanium discs were an energy density of 0.597 J/cm² each pulse, a pulse power of 270 mW, a laser beam spot of 2.4 mm in diameter, and a rate of repetition of 10 Hertz (Hz) for a pulse duration of 6 nanoseconds (ns). The mode was no contact, and a distance of 500 micrometers was used with a total time of irradiation equal to 2 s (s). The collection of microbiological samples was made for all groups; colony-forming units (CFU) were identified by two different practitioners, and the average of their examinations was considered for each sample. The average of the TBC (CFU/mL) was calculated for each group. Values were 0.000 CFU/mL, 4767 CFU/mL, and 0.000 CFU/mL for Group L, Group C, and Group S, respectively. Therefore, the suggested treatment protocol was able to provoke a total disinfection of the contaminated titanium surfaces. A statistical difference was only found between Group L vs. Group C and between Group S vs. Group C. The difference was not significant between Group S and Group L. In conclusion, the present study confirmed that the Q-Switch Nd: YAG laser under our specific conditions can provide a total disinfection of the contaminated titanium surfaces.

Titanium Wear of Dental Implants from Placement, under Loading and Maintenance Protocols

The objective of this review was to analyze the process of wear of implants leading to the shedding of titanium particles into the peri-implant hard and soft tissues. Titanium is considered highly biocompatible with low corrosion and toxicity, but recent studies indicate that this understanding may be misleading as the properties of the material change drastically when titanium nanoparticles (NPs) are shed from implant surfaces. These NPs are immunogenic and are associated with a macrophage-mediated inflammatory response by the host. The literature discussed in this review indicates that titanium NPs may be shed from implant surfaces at the time of implant placement, under loading conditions, and during implant maintenance procedures. We also discuss the significance of the micro-gap at the implant-abutment interface and the effect of size of the titanium particles on their toxicology. These findings are significant as the titanium particles can have adverse effects on local soft and hard tissues surrounding implants, implant health and prognosis, and even the health of systemic tissues and organs.