Reliability of findings around healthy implants in association with oral hygiene measures: a clinical, microbiological, and immunological follow-up in edentulous patients

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.

Estimation of Soft and Hard Tissue Revolutionization Surrounding Dental Implant: A 2-Year Retrospective Study

A dental implant is an idyllic mode of operandi for oral rehabilitation for complete and partially edentulous patients. The success of an implant is based on the health of its surrounding tissues. Therefore, the biological and clinical aspects of implant prosthesis and their surrounding tissues must persist to be investigated. A two-year retrospective clinical-radiological study was conducted to estimate peri-implant soft and hard tissue revolutionization after the placement of implants. A clinical-radiological investigation was carried out to determine the amount of soft and hard tissue revolutionization that occurred following the implantation of 200 implants. From October 2020 to March 2021, the research was carried out in the College of Dentistry at King Khalid University in Saudi Arabia. It was decided to conduct this study using a retrospective clinical record, which involved gathering information about patients who had previously received dental implants within the previous two years. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding index (BI), peri-implant probing depth (PD), and peri-implant crestal bone level were measured at baseline and three months after implant placement in adult patients ranging in age from 20 to 50 years. The results were compared to the full-mouth index (FMI). Ethical clearance and written informed consent were obtained from all the study participants. The statistical analysis was done by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS-23.0 version) (IBM; Chicago). The present study concluded that plaque accumulation, gingival bleeding, and probing depth were increased around implants during the follow-up, but it would not affect crestal bone loss. Still, it is essential to conduct a similar study with a larger sample size and a long follow-up period to give more precise results.

Evaluation of hard and soft tissue changes around implant in partially edentulous patients: a clinico-radiographic study

Introduction

implant supported prosthesis has become a viable treatment option for missing teeth. An important tool to detect early changes around implants is the standardized assessment of peri-implant hard and soft tissue parameters. The purpose of this prospective study was to clinically and radiographically assess the soft and hard tissues around implants.

Methods

ten (10) patients with 13 implant supported prosthesis were included in the study. Clinical parameters plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), peri-implant Probing Depth (PD), gingival margin Level, width of keratinized mucosa (WKM) and implant mobility were measured at loading and at 3 and 6 months. The radiographic crestal bone loss and peri-apical implant radiolucencies were also evaluated at loading and at 3 and 6 months. Student paired t test and correlation and regression analysis was done to evaluate the effect of clinical variables over bone loss.

Results

there was decrease in the site specific PI, GI, mSBI and peri-implant PD and an increase in the gingival recession from baseline to 6 months. The WKM remained stable throughout the study. Significant crestal bone loss was observed around implants more on the distal as compared to the mesial aspect. No mobility or peri-apical implant radiolucency was observed. Regression analysis of the confounding variables with bone loss showed no significant effect.

Conclusion

the occlusal loading of implants after 6 months showed significant bone loss (<1mm), which was within acceptable limits and the soft tissues around implants were in good health.

The Correlation of Clinical Outcomes (Marginal Bone Loss, Probing Depth, and Patient Satisfaction) With Different Prosthetic Aspects of Implant Overdentures: A Five-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

Implant overdentures increase retention, stability, support, and subsequently comfort and patient satisfaction with removable dentures. This study aimed to investigate the correlation of clinical outcomes (marginal bone loss, probing depth, and patient satisfaction) with different prosthetic aspects of mandibular implant overdentures. Seventy-four implant overdenture wearers who had received their overdentures between 1 to 5 years ago were selected using simple cluster sampling. The data investigated included mucosal health of the mouth, condition of peri-implant tissues, marginal bone loss (MBL), and patient satisfaction. The relationship of MBL and probing depth (PD) with independent variables was assessed by Pearson and Spearman's rho correlation coefficients. The comparisons of MBL, PD, patient satisfaction, and tissue irritation among different states of independent variables were done by analysis of covariance, Tukey and Tamhane post-tests, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05). A total of 186 implants were evaluated. The mean ages of participants and overdentures were 61.62 ± 9.28 (year) and 38.45 ± 16.64 (month), respectively. The survival rate and success rate were calculated to be 100% and 97.8%, respectively. Higher width of attached gingiva was correlated with less PD significantly (P = .006). Gingival index (P &lt; .001) and plaque index (P = .006) were correlated with PD positively. Mean MBL for those who needed matrix/patrix adjustment was significantly higher than that of those who did not need it (P = .025). Taking into account our small sample size, the results of this study suggest that healthy peri-implant mucosa is significantly correlated with the presence of attached gingiva and appropriate oral health care. Furthermore, patients receiving implant overdentures should be informed about the importance of regular recalls.

Molecular tools for preventing and improving diagnosis of peri-implant diseases

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease of tissues surrounding osseointegrated dental implants. Inflammation affecting soft and hard peri-implant tissues can cause alveolar bone resorption and subsequent implant loss. Clinical surveillance and early diagnosis are of paramount importance to reduce clinical failures and improve implant survival. Current diagnosis of implants is based on clinical and radiological signs. Molecular tests are an emerging diagnostic methodology, which potentially can help to detect and prevent early peri-implantitis and monitor the efficacy of therapy as well. A plethora of potential biomarkers are potentially available to support the clinical diagnosis of peri-implantitis. However, conflicting diagnostic conclusions have been reached, probably related to weak statistical results due to limited sample size or disease heterogeneity. The present paper reviews candidate diagnostic biomarkers for peri-implantitis, including infective agents, genetic susceptibility factors, and key proteins related to inflammation and tissue remodeling.

How do peri-implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri-implantitis? A critical review

Objectives

The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.

Materials and methods

Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.

Results

Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.

Conclusion

Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

Stability, Survival, and Tolerability of an Auditory Osseointegrated Implant for Bone Conduction Hearing: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare implant stability, survival, and soft tissue reactions for a novel (test) and previous generation (control) percutaneous auditory osseointegrated implant for bone conduction hearing at long-term follow-up of 5 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Single follow-up visit of a previously completed multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

PATIENTS

Fifty-seven of the 77 participants of a completed randomized controlled trial on a new auditory osseointegrated implant underwent a single follow-up visit 5 years after implantation, which comprised implant stability measurements and collection of Holgers scores. Additionally, implant survival was recorded for all 77 patients from the original trial.

RESULTS

The test implant showed significantly higher implant stability quotient (ISQ) values compared with the control implant throughout the 5-year follow-up. Mean area under the curve of ISQ high from baseline to 5 years was 71.6 (standard deviation [SD] ±2.0) and 66.7 (SD ±3.4) for the test and control implant, respectively (p < 0.0001). For both implants, the mean ISQ value recorded at 5 years was higher compared with implantation (test group +2.03 [SD ±2.55, within group p < 0.0001] and control group +2.25 [SD ±4.95, within group p = 0.12]). No difference was noticed in increase from baseline between groups (p = 0.64). Furthermore, evaluation of soft tissue reactions continued to show superiority of the test implant. At the 5-year follow-up visit, one patient (2.5%) presented with a Holgers grade 2 in the test group, compared with four patients (23.5%) in the control group (p = 0.048); no patient presented with more severe soft tissue reactions. Excluding explantations, the survival rate was 95.8% for the test group and 95.0% for the control group. The corresponding rates including explantations were 93.9 and 90.0%.

CONCLUSION

The test implant showed superiority in terms of higher mean ISQ values and less adverse soft tissue reactions, both at the single 5-year follow-up visit and during the complete follow-up. In addition, both implants showed an equally high implant survival.

Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid Analysis, Enzymes and Biomarkers: a Systemetic Review

OBJECTIVES

To review the current understanding of the biomarkers and enzymes associated with different forms peri-implant diseases and how their level changes influence the pathogenesis of the inflammatory diseases around dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search in two different databases was performed including MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE between 1996 to 2016. Human studies analyse peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) biomarker and enzyme levels of implants having peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis published in English language, were evaluated. A systematic review was performed to assess which biomarkers and enzymes in PICF were used to identify the inflammatory conditions around dental implants.

RESULTS

Fifty-one articles were identified of which 41 were further evaluated and included in the analysis. Due to significant heterogeneity between included studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a systematic descriptive review was performed.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarkers and enzymes in peri-implant crevicular fluid have shown promising results in differentiating from peri-implant disease condition to health. However, due to inconsistent results and acquiring much evidence from cross-sectional studies, additional evidence supported by randomized-controlled trials is needed to validate the links reported.

Can peri-implant crevicular fluid assist in the diagnosis of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A broader understanding of the immune inflammatory profile of peri-implant diseases could be helpful in the development of host-targeted preventive and therapeutic strategies. The aim of this study is to answer two clinical questions: 1) whether patients with peri-implantitis (PP) present higher prevalence of any specific inflammatory cytokine in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) compared with healthy patients; and 2) whether local inflammation measured in PICF can be used as a predictor for incipient PP.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on the most common cytokines released in PICF in healthy and PP-affected sites was conducted from 1996 up to and including October 2013 using predefined search strategies. Cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal studies were considered. Meta-analyses were done separately for healthy, mucositis (MU), and PP outcomes.

RESULTS

Interleukin (IL)-1β was the most studied cytokine (n = 12), followed by tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α (n = 10). Other cytokines were also linked to PP, such as IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, and IL-17. Statistical differences were revealed when IL-1β release was compared between healthy implant sites and PP (P = 0.001) or MU sites (P = 0.002), respectively; when PP and MU were compared, no statistical differences could be detected (P = 0.80). For TNF-α release, significant differences were found between healthy and PP implants (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

PICF containing inflammatory mediators, such as IL-1β and TNF-α, can be used as additional criteria for a more robust diagnosis of peri-implant infection. Additionally, once the inflammatory process is installed, no differences were found between peri-implant MU and PP.

Single-blind randomized clinical trial to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes after one year of immediate versus delayed implant placement supporting full-arch prostheses

Purpose: To evaluate and compare peri-implant health, marginal bone loss and success of immediate and delayed implant placement for rehabilitation with full-arch fixed prostheses. Material and Methods: The present study was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, clinical preliminary trial. Patients were randomized into two treatment groups. In Group A implants were placed immediately post-extraction and in Group B six months after extraction. The following control time-points were established: one week, six months and twelve months after loading. Measurements were taken of peri-implant crevicular fluid volume, plaque index, gingival retraction, keratinized mucosa, probing depth, modified gingival index and presence of mucositis. Implant success rates were evaluated for the two groups. The study sample included fifteen patients (nine women and six men) with a mean average age of 63.7 years. One hundred and forty-four implants were placed: 76 placed in healed sites and 68 placed immediately. Results: At the moment of prosthetic loading, keratinized mucosa width and probing depth were higher in immediate implants than delayed implants, with statistically significant differences. However, after six and twelve months, differences between groups had disappeared. Bone loss was 0.54 ± 0.39 mm for immediate implants and 0.66 ± 0.25 mm for delayed implants (p=0.201). No implants failed in either group. Conclusions: The present study with a short follow-up and a small sample yielded no statistically significant differences in implant success and peri-implant marginal bone loss between immediate and delayed implants with fixed full-arch prostheses. Peri-implant health showed no statistically significant differences for any of the studied parameters (crevicular fluid volume, plaque index, gingival retraction, keratinized mucosa, probing depth, modified gingival index and presence of mucositis) at the twelve-month follow-up.

Key words:Immediate implants, delayed implants, peri-implant health, success rate.

Peri-Implant Tissue Findings in Bone Grafted Oral Cancer Patients Compared to non Bone Grafted Patients without Oral Cancer

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare microbiological, histological, and mechanical findings from tissues around osseointergrated dental implants in patients who had undergone tumour resection and subsequent bone grafting with non bone grafted patients without a history of oral cancer and to develop an effective tool for the monitoring of the peri-implant tissues. A third aim was to assess and compare the masticatory function of the two patient groups after reconstruction with dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 20 patients were divided into 2 groups. The first group was edentulous and treated with dental implants without the need for bone grafting. The second edentulous group, with a history of oral cancer involving the mandible, received onlay bone grafts with concurrent placement of dental implants. Microbiological, histological, mechanical and biochemical assessment methods, crevicular fluid flow rate, hygiene-index, implant mobility, and the masticatory function were analysed and compared in both patient groups.

RESULTS

THE MICROBIOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF THE THREE MOST COMMON PATHOGENIC BACTERIA: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedius, Actinobacillus actinomycetencomitans. A causal relationship between specific microbes and peri-implant inflammation could not be found. All biopsies in both patient groups revealed early signs of soft tissue peri-implant inflammation.

CONCLUSIONS

The crevicular fluid volume and grade of gingival inflammation around the dental implants were related. Peri-implant tissue findings were similar in the two patient groups despite the history of oral cancer and the need for bone grafting at the time of dental implant placement.

Osmotic pressure of periimplant sulcular and gingival crevicular fluids: a split-mouth, randomized study of its measurement and clinical significance

OBJECTIVES

This study comparatively investigated periimplant sulcular fluid (PISF) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) by means of the osmotic pressure (OP) levels of PISF (PISFOP) and GCF (GCFOP). It was a preliminary research that aimed to quantify PISFOP and GCFOP as well as to evaluate their clinical significances around implants and teeth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Partially edentulous implant patients treated by the same clinicians and using the same implant system were randomized in a split-mouth trial design. Fifty-four implants and teeth from these patients were selected in the same mouth and jaw as matched pairs of samples, i.e. as symmetrical or corresponding implant and tooth. PISFOP/GCFOP measurement was performed by an osmometer following PISF/GCF sampling procedures. Clinical significance was evaluated by the correlations between PISFOP/GCFOP and some clinical examination parameters of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues. These parameters included Silness-Löe plaque index (PI), Löe-Silness gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL).

RESULTS

PISFOP was higher than GCFOP, and GI, BOP, PPD and PAL were higher in the implant group than in the tooth group (P<0.05). PISFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of implants (P<0.01 for PI, GI and BOP; P<0.05 for PPD and PAL), and GCFOP positively correlated with the clinical parameters of teeth (P<0.01 for PPD; P<0.05 for PI, GI, BOP and PAL).

CONCLUSIONS

The results reveal that PISFOP and GCFOP may be measured by osmometer, and their levels may be related with the clinical conditions of periimplant/periodontal soft tissues.