Efficacy of periimplant mechanical debridement with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in the treatment of periimplant diseases among cigarette smokers and non-smokers

Adjunctive photochemical therapy for management of inflammatory peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This study aimed to systematically review the data on interventions involving adjunctive photochemical therapy in treating peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI). The electronic search was conducted through six databases in October 2023, seeking studies relying on any kind of adjunctive photochemical therapy in treating inflammatory peri-implant diseases (PIDs). To showcase the effect size, mean differences along with 95% confidence intervals were utilized. Forty-seven studies were deemed eligible for qualitative synthesis, 14 of which were included in the meta-analysis. Low-level light therapy and photodynamic therapy led to enhanced improvements in clinical and radiographic indices, such as bone level (BL), bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD), during the 3-month follow-up. However, the differences in efficacy between treatments incorporating adjunctive photochemical therapy and those relying solely on mechanical debridement, considered the gold standard, lessened over extended follow-up periods of 6, 9, and 12 months. Significant differences were observed when comparing the treatment outcomes following adjunctive photochemical therapy between obese and smoker patients with healthy subjects. Incorporating adjunctive photochemical therapy for PID treatment might improve clinical and radiographic parameters in a short-term follow-up of 3 months, but longer-term benefits appear comparable to routine treatments.

Non-surgical management of peri-implantitis with photodynamic therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical parameters and biomarkers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical and biomarker outcomes of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as an adjunct to non-surgical mechanical debridement (MD) in the management of peri‑implantitis, and to compare its efficacy to MD alone or other non-surgical treatment modalities.

DATA AND SOURCES

Electronic searches in PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were conducted. 4675 studies published until November 2023 were screened. Clinical studies reporting on non-surgical treatments involving PDT were selected. Meta-analyses assessed clinical parameters (bleeding on probing [BOP], probing depth [PD], plaque index [PI], crestal bone loss [CBL], clinical attachment level [CAL]) and biomarkers.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 25 studies were included. The meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials revealed that both MD alone and MD+PDT significantly improved clinical and biomarker outcomes compared to baseline. The addition of PDT provided greater improvements at 3 months for BOP (SMD:0.90; 95 % CI:1.53 to -0.28; p = 0.005), PD (SMD:1.15; 95 % CI:1.72 to -0.58; p < 0.0001), PI (SMD:0.74; 95 % CI:1.15 to -0.33; p = 0.0004) and CBL (SMD:0.38; 95 % CI:0.73 to -0.03; p = 0.04). The additional benefits of PDT were less pronounced on CAL, mucosal recession, and inflammatory biomarkers. No significant changes were observed over extended follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunct PDT significantly enhanced clinical outcomes, particularly for the short-term, with the most notable benefits observed in BOP, PD, PI, and CBL reductions. However, additional benefits in CAL, mucosal recession, and inflammatory biomarkers outcomes remain limited. Standardized protocols and long-term studies are warranted.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

PDT as an adjunct in non-surgical peri-implantitis management improves short-term clinical outcomes, particularly for BOP, PD, PI, and CBL. The benefits of adjunctive use with mechanical debridement offer a promising and minimally invasive approach. Further long-term research is needed to establish its role in routine clinical practice.

Role of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for the management of peri‑implant diseases among habitual nicotinic product users: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to systematically review original studies that assessed the influence of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for managing peri‑implant diseases among habitual nicotinic product (NP) users.

METHODS

The research question was "Is aPDT effective for managing peri‑implant diseases among NP users?" Indexed databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge) and Google Scholar were searched up to and including December 2024 without time and language barriers. Using Boolean operators, the following keywords were searched in different combinations: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy; crestal bone loss; peri‑implant diseases; probing depth; nicotine; and smoking. Original clinical studies were included. Letters to the Editor, Case-reports, case-series, commentaries, reviews and perspectives/expert opinions were excluded. The literature search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs performed on adult males were included and processed for data extraction. The mean ages of participants ranged between 31 and 57 years. The wavelength of the diode laser ranged between 660 and 670 nm in all studies. Results from all RCTs showed that aPDT, when performed as an adjunct to MD, is more effective in reducing peri‑implant plaque index, bleeding scores, and peri‑implant PD in contrast to when mechanical debridement (MD) was performed alone. None of the studies reported a statistically significant difference in crestal bone height, irrespective of whether MD was done with or without adjunct aPDT. In all studies, the follow-up duration ranged between 3 and 12 months. The aPDT was performed once (after MD) in all studies. All studies had a low RoB and their results were based on power-adjusted data.

CONCLUSION

In the short term, a single session of aPDT as an adjunct to MD effectively reduces peri‑implant soft-tissue inflammation among NP users with peri‑implant diseases. However, this treatment does not influence CBL in these patients.

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during supportive treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for managing the peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and success of dental implants. This review aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjuvant therapy option for managing peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases (no time limitation). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Of 322 eligible articles, 14 studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity and poor quality of the articles reviewed prevented a meta-analysis. The reviewed articles used a light source (60 s, 1 session) with a wavelength of 635 to 810 nm for optimal tissue penetration. These studies showed improved clinical parameters such as probing depth, bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index after aPDT treatment. However, in smokers, BOP increased after aPDT. Compared to conventional therapy, aPDT had a longer-term antimicrobial effect and reduced periopathogens like Porphyromonas gingivalis, as well as inflammatory factors such as Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α). No undesired side effects were reported in the studies.

CONCLUSION

Although the reviewed articles had limitations, aPDT showed effectiveness in improving peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis. It is recommended as an adjunctive strategy for managing peri‑implant diseases, but further high-quality research is needed for efficacy and long-term outcomes.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Adjunctive Photodynamic Therapy for Treating Peri-Implant Mucositis Among Cigarette Smokers and Diabetics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the influence of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) on peri-implant clinical and radiographic outcomes among cigarette smokers and diabetics with peri-implant mucositis (piM). Methods: Randomized controlled trials, assessing the clinical and radiographic parameters of aPDT versus MD alone among smokers and diabetics with piM, were included in the study. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the standard mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed utilizing the modified Jadad quality scale. Results: The meta-analyses found statistically significant differences between the impact of adjunct aPDT and MD alone on the peri-implant plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing among smokers and diabetics with piM at the final follow-up visit. However, no significant differences were found between the impact of adjunct aPDT and MD alone on the peri-implant crestal bone loss among smokers and diabetics with piM at the final follow-up. Conclusions: The application of aPDT as an adjunctive to MD demonstrated improved scores of the peri-implant clinical parameters among smokers and diabetics with piM in comparison with MD alone.

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.

The diode laser as coadyuvant therapy in the non-surgical conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The present study systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate the effect of diode laser therapy in the management of peri-implant mucositis.

Material and Methods

The electronic databases were searched until January 2020. Outcome measures were bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) and probing depth (PD). The addressed PICO question was: Is the diode laser therapy effective reducing the signs of inflammation as an adjunctive element in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis?.

Results

Eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review for qualitative synthesis and three in the meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. All studies included in the quantitative synthesis have low risk of bias according to the Cochrane collaborations’ tool. Diode laser as coadyuvant therapy significantly reduced plaque index (SMD: -1.24; -0.47/-1.53) but not in bleeding on probing (SMD: -0.84; -0.31/-1.53) or probing pocket depth (SMD: -1.36; -0.28/-1.69). Non-statistically significant reductions in peri-implant bleeding on probing and in probing pocket depth were also observed in the test groups of most studies included in the meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The results should be interpreted cautiously due to the great heterogeneity in the methodology of the studies included in the systematic review. However the meta-analysis suggests that the use of diode lasers, as an adjunct in conventional non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis, is promising in reducing the clinical signs of peri-implant mucositis, especially reducing the perii-implant plaque index.

Key words:Peri-implant diseases, peri-implant mucositis, laser therapy, diode laser.

Effectiveness of single versus multiple sessions of photodynamic therapy as adjunct to scaling and root planing on periodontopathogenic bacteria in patients with periodontitis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present 6-months' follow-up study was to assess the influence of single versus multiple sessions of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as adjunct to scaling and root planning (SRP) on periodontopathogenic bacteria in patients with periodontitis.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with periodontitis were included. The patients were randomly divided into 3 groups. In groups 1 (n = 15), 2 (n = 15) and 3 (n = 15), the patients under went SRP with PDT at (a) baseline; (b) baseline and after 1-month; and (c) baseline and after 1- and 3-months. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and marginal bone loss (MBL) were measured at baseline and 6-months follow-up. Counts of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum and Aggregatibacter Actinomycetemcomitans were determined before SRP and at 4- and 6-months follow-up.

RESULTS

All patients had grade-B periodontitis. There was no statistically significant difference in age and gender in all groups. At- 6-months' follow-up, patients that underwent SRP once showed significantly higher counts of periodontopathogenic bacteria in the oral biofilm compared with patients that received photobiomodulation twice or three times (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the periodontal parameters and counts of gram-negative bacteria in patients that received photobiomodulation 2 or 3 times.

CONCLUSION

At least 2 sessions of PDT following baseline SRP is essential to achieve a significant reduction in the counts of subgingival bacteria in periodontitis patients over a 6-month follow-up period.

Adjunctive Use of Lasers in Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of lasers in the treatment of implant mucositis and peri-implantitis compared to conventional treatment (non-surgical or surgical: resective or regenerative).

METHODS

Sources of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar search engines were used on articles published from 1997 to 2020 in English, with selected keyword criteria applied. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected.

RESULTS

All included studies were considered of "high quality" according to the quality assessment scale. The comparative assessment of the RCTs was done twice for each RCT based on the type of treatment and according to wavelength. There is strong scientific evidence that, regarding non-surgical treatment, adjunct laser application can provide better results only in the short term (three months). Regarding the surgical approach, the method of decontamination plays a subordinate role. All wavelengths/applications presented similar results.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the adjunctive use of lasers in the treatment of peri-implant inflammation is effective for up to three months; there is no strong evidence regarding the long term benefit compared to conventional treatment.

Peri-implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss around immediately-loaded narrow-diameter implants placed in cigarette-smokers: 6-year follow-up results

BACKGROUND

It is hypothesized that in the long-term, soft tissue inflammation (reflected by increased scores of peri-implant probing-depth [PD]) and crestal bone loss (CBL) is higher in cigarette-smoker than nonsmokers with narrow diameter implants (NDIs).

PURPOSE

The aim of the present 6-years' follow-up clinical observational study was to compare the peri-implant soft tissue inflammatory parameters (plaque index [PI], gingival index [GI], and PD) and CBL around immediately-loaded NDIs placed in cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all groups, peri-implant GI, PI and PD were measured on six sites (distolingual/palatal, mesiolingual/palatal mesiobuccal, distobuccal, midlingual/palatal, and midbuccal) per implant. The CBL was gauged on digital bitewing x-rays, which were standardized using the long cone paralleling technique. CBL was demarcated as the vertical distance from 2 mm below the implant-abutment connection to the most crestally-positioned alveolar bone.

RESULTS

All study-participants were male. Twenty-six cigarette smokers and twenty-five nonsmokers were included. The mean age of cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers was 45.5 ± 10.3 and 47.4 ± 9.4 years, respectively. Cigarette-smokers had a smoking history of 10.6 ± 0.4 pack years. Family history of tobacco usage was more often reported by cigarette-smokers (57.7%) than nonsmokers (20%). All cigarette-smokers and nonsmokers were aware that smoking is a risk-factor of loss of implant. Three (11.5%) of cigarette-smokers reported that they have attempted to quit smoking and 76.9% of cigarette-smokers (n = 20) reported that they had no intention to quit smoking in the future. The peri-implant P-I (P < .01), PD (P < .01) and mesial (P < .01), and distal (P < .01) CBL were significantly high in cigarette-smokers compared with nonsmokers. There was no statistically significant difference in GI among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Cigarette-smoking enhances peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and increases CBL around immediately-loaded NDIs.

Impact of jaw location on clinical and radiological status of dental implants placed in cigarette-smokers and never-smokers: 5-year follow-up results

PURPOSE

The aim of this 60 months follow-up investigation was to investigate the impact of jaw location on clinical and radiological status of dental-implant therapy in cigarette-smokers and never-smokers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine self-reported cigarette-smokers and 27 nonsmokers were assessed. All implants were categorized into three regions with reference to their location in the maxilla or mandible: (a) Anterior zone: implants located in anterior teeth; (b) Middle zone: Implants located in the premolar region; and (c) posterior zone: implants located in the molar region. Peri-implant crestal bone loss (CBL), bleeding-on-probing (BOP) and probing-depth (PD) ≥ 4 mm and were assessed. Level of statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Mean age of cigarette-smokers (n = 29) and never-smokers (n = 27) was 44.5 years (39-51 years) and 43.6 years (35-49 years), respectively. The average duration of cigarette-smoking was 20.3 years (17-26 years). The mean periimplant PD (P < .05) and CBL (P < .05) were significantly higher in cigarette-smokers in contrast to never-smokers in all zones. No statistically significant differences in CBL, PD, and BOP were observed in the three zones of implant location among cigarette-smokers and never-smokers.

CONCLUSION

Smoking enhanced PD and CBL around dental implants and this relationship was independent of site of implant placement and jaw location.

The Effect of Tobacco Smoking on Musculoskeletal Health: A Systematic Review

This systematic review explored associations between smoking and health outcomes involving the musculoskeletal system. AMSTAR criteria were followed. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Science Direct returned 243 articles meeting inclusion criteria. A majority of studies found smoking has negative effects on the musculoskeletal system. In research on bones, smoking was associated with lower BMD, increased fracture risk, periodontitis, alveolar bone loss, and dental implant failure. In research on joints, smoking was associated with increased joint disease activity, poor functional outcomes, and poor therapeutic response. There was also evidence of adverse effects on muscles, tendons, cartilage, and ligaments. There were few studies on the musculoskeletal health outcomes of secondhand smoke, smoking cessation, or other modes of smoking, such as waterpipes or electronic cigarettes. This review found evidence that suggests tobacco smoking has negative effects on the health outcomes of the musculoskeletal system. There is a need for further research to understand mechanisms of action for the effects of smoking on the musculoskeletal system and to increase awareness of healthcare providers and community members of the adverse effects of smoking on the musculoskeletal system.

Antimicrobial Efficacy of Materials Used for Sealing the Implant Abutment Screw Hole: An In Vitro Evaluation

AIM

The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the antimicrobial efficacy of materials (gutta percha [GP], polytetrafluoroethylene [PTFE] tape, and vinyl polysiloxane [VP]) used for sealing the implant abutment screw hole (IASH).

METHODS

Sixty implants with a Morse cone connection were used. The implants were randomly divided into 3 groups (20 implants/group). In groups 1, 2, and 3, the IASH was sealed with GP, PTFE, and VP, respectively. Unstimulated whole saliva (UWS) was used as a contaminant medium for the incubation of the specimens. After 7 days of incubation, the specimens were opened under aseptic conditions, and the contents of the inner parts of the IASH were collected using sterile microbrushes. The occurrence of microbial leakage through the screw access channel interface was assessed with the checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization method. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among samples in groups 1, 2, and 3, the UWS collected before incubation showed no statistically significant differences in relation to the prevalence of species investigated. Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Tannerella forsythia, and Candida albicans were isolated from group 1 than groups 2 and 3.

CONCLUSION

The choice of material for sealing the IASH is entirely dependent on the operators' choice and experience.

Effect of local zoledronate delivery on osseointegration: a systematic review of preclinical studies

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the effect of local zoledronate (ZOL) delivery (topical or as implant surface coatings) on osseointegration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this systematic review, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. To address the focused question, 'Does local zoledronate delivery enhance osseointegration?' indexed databases were searched without time or language restrictions up to and including April 2017 using various combination of the following keywords: 'zoledronate', 'bisphosphonates', 'osseointegration' and 'topical administration'. Letters to the Editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case-series and case-reports were excluded.

RESULTS

Initially, 383 articles were identified out of which, 23 experimental studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 18 studies, ZOL was incorporated into implants surfaces as a coating and in five studies ZOL was applied topically (bone graft or irrigation) into the bone cavities. Results from 87% studies reported that local delivery of ZOL (coating or topical) is effective in enhancing osseointegration or new bone formation around implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Local ZOL delivery (coating or topical) seems to enhance osseointegration in animals; however, from a clinical perspective, further randomized control trials with long-term follow-up are needed in this regard.

Influence of implant location in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: 2-year follow-up

The aim of the present cross-sectional retrospective 2-year follow-up clinical study was to assess the influence of implant location on clinical and radiographic parameters around dental implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Twenty-seven patients with T2DM and 25 non-diabetic controls were included. Implants were classified into three zones according to their location: (1) anterior zone: implant/s replacing anterior teeth, (2) middle zone: implant/s replacing premolars, and (3) posterior zone: implant/s replacing molars. Peri-implant bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The mean age of patients with T2DM was 42.5 years and that of non-diabetic controls was 40.6 years. The mean fasting blood glucose levels of patients with and without T2DM were 74.5mg/dl (66-80mg/dl) and 82.5mg/dl (79-88.1mg/dl), respectively. The mean duration of T2DM was 4.3 years. There was no significant difference in BOP, PD, or CBL around implants placed in any of the zones in the jaws of patients with and without T2DM. There is no influence of implant location on clinical and radiographic parameters around dental implants placed in patients with and without T2DM.