Efficacy of a Surgical versus a Nonsurgical Approach in the Treatment of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective of the study was to compare the surgical vs. the nonsurgical techniques in the treatment of peri-implant diseases and to obtain a comprehensive analysis of the effects on BOP/probing depths when applying either the surgical technique vs. a nonsurgical technique. Twenty-seven articles with a total of 29 trials were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane library. The articles were published in the past 10 years and complied with the inclusion criteria. Three metanalyses were performed evaluating the effects of surgical and nonsurgical treatments on the reduction in probing depths as well as on bleeding on probing. Fifteen studies involved the treatment of peri-implant diseases with the surgical approach and 14 studies involved the application of the nonsurgical protocol (6 treating peri-implantitis and 8 treating mucositis). A mean reduction in probing depths of 2.31 mm were obtained when the surgical approach was applied for peri-implantitis and a mean of 57% reduction in bleeding on probing was obtained with the surgical protocols. Inflammation was significantly reduced when nonsurgical protocols were applied for mucositis. The highest reduction in probing depths and bleeding on probing was found when emdogain was used with allograft and resorbable membranes. Nonsurgical treatments with extensive hygiene measures were mainly indicated in the treatment of mucositis and do not present bone gain but lowers or maintains probing depths and reduced bleeding on probing. Further studies should be performed with a standardized definition of peri-implantitis with the same surgical or nonsurgical protocol applied as well as the same follow-up period in order to correctly identify the ideal treatment of choice.

Erythritol powder airflow for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

Peri-implant mucositis is a biofilm-related, reversible inflammatory disease that can evolve into peri-implantitis if not adequately treated. The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy of air-abrasive powder as compared to chlorhexidine (CHX) for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and occurrence of peri-implantitis 12 months after treatment.

METHODS

In the control group, full-mouth calculus and plaque removal was performed with ultrasound and manual devices, and a 1.0% CHX gel was applied; in the test group, supra- and subgingival biofilm removal was performed using erythritol powder with a dedicated nozzle and calculus removal was performed with ultrasonic instruments if needed. Bleeding and plaque indexes, peri-implant probing depth and tissue level were measured at 1 week, and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment, while PROMs were evaluated up to 7 days after treatment.

RESULTS

Among 80 included implants, 70 were analysed at 12 months follow-up (30 in the test group, 40 in the control group, and 20 subjects). Success rates (implant-level) in terms of bleeding index were significantly different between the test (96.7%) and control group (92.5%); as for PROMs, only taste sensation was significantly better in the test group. The test group was significantly correlated to the smallest changes in peri-implant probing depth between baseline and 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The study showed that both treatment strategies are effective. This suggests that the use of air-abrasive powders could be used as an alternative biofilm removal method instead of adjunctive treatments with antiseptics.

Treatment of peri-implant mucositis using spermidine and calcium chloride as local adjunctive delivery to non-surgical mechanical debridement: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of non-surgical mechanical debridement with or without adjunctive application of a gel with spermidine and sodium hyaluronate associated to a sealing gel (i.e. calcium chloride) in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PiM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with one implant with PiM were randomly allocated in test and control groups. Test implants were treated with non-surgical mechanical debridement and local unique application of spermidine and calcium chloride gel while control implants were treated using non-surgical mechanical debridement alone. The primary outcome was BOP change. FMPS, FMBS and PD were also assessed. For an Implant the presence of a single bleeding spot (1 site/implant without a continuous line or profuse bleeding) was considered as complete disease resolution.

RESULTS

After 3 months, a statistically significant improvement of all parameters were recorded in each group (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant differences were found between test and control procedures (p > 0.05). At 3 months, 85% of test implants and 70% of control implants resulted in disease resolution. Residual implants with PiM in control group displayed a greater number of BOP-positive sites when compared with those of test group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Whitin the limitations of the present study, results indicate that the clinical parameters improved following non-surgical mechanical debridement regardless the adjunct of spermidine and calcium chloride gel. Nevertheless complete resolution of PiM was not obtained in both experimental groups.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although no statistically significant differences were found between test and control procedures, the adjunctive application of spermidine and calcium chloride gel to non-surgical mechanical debridement may be considered in order to reduce the number of sites with BOP-positive.

Maintenance of peri-implant health in general dental practice

The long-term maintenance or restoration of peri-implant tissues' health depends on the strategic implementation of preventive measures and interventions. These measures should be initiated before implant placement and continued throughout a patient's lifetime, as part of a tailored and comprehensive supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) programme. Central to the clinical efforts of maintaining and rehabilitating peri-implant tissues are several key factors, including the ongoing assessment and frequent monitoring of tissue health and stability, proactive oral health promotion, the control of risk factors and indicators and the provision of professional plaque biofilm removal. It is of paramount importance to underline that SPIC should not limit its scope exclusively to patients already in a state of peri-implant health; in fact, it is imperative that it should extend its protective effect to individuals who have been previously diagnosed and treated for peri-implant diseases, focusing on preventing its recurrence and progression, thereby avoiding further complications, such as implant loss.This narrative review presents an overview of the current literature on the maintenance of peri-implant tissues' health and the steps of SPIC providing insights into the critical factors to be considered when managing dental implant patients in the general dental practice.

A Single Dose of Piperacillin Plus Tazobactam Gel as an Adjunct to Professional Mechanical Plaque Removal (PMPR) in Patients with Peri-Implant Mucositis: A 6-Month Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial aimed to evaluate the clinical and microbiological efficacy of professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) with or without adjunctive application of piperacillin plus tazobactam gel in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PiM) for up to 6 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 31 patients with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing (BoP) > 1 at at least one site at baseline, absence of peri-implant bone loss compared with a previous radiograph). After randomized assignment to test and control groups, patients received full-mouth supragingival scaling with or without piperacillin plus tazobactam gel. Clinical examination was performed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months, and a microbiological examination was performed at baseline and after 3 months.

RESULTS

After six months, both treatment modalities resulted in significant reductions and improvements in clinical parameters at the implant sites. Neither study group achieved a complete resolution of PiM (i.e., BoP ≤ 1 per implant). The number of implants with BoP decreased statistically significantly between subsequent time points (p < 0.001) in both the test and the control group. Significant BoP differences (p = 0.039) were observed between groups at 6 months (difference to baseline) following therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the present study, the single use of a slow-release, locally applied antibiotic combination of piperacillin and tazobactam gel, adjunctive to PMPR, showed an improvement in clinical variable of implants diagnosed with PiM. The adjunctive treatment resulted in higher BoP reduction when compared to the control, but no significant differences were observed regarding the changes in other clinical and microbiological parameters.

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.

Novel Flowchart Guiding the Non-Surgical and Surgical Management of Peri-Implant Complications: A Narrative Review

Peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, are induced by dysbiotic microbiota resulting in the inflammatory destruction of peri-implant tissue. Nonetheless, there has yet to be an established protocol for the treatment of these diseases in a predictable manner, although many clinicians and researchers have proposed various treatment modalities for their management. With the increase in the number of reports evaluating the efficacy of various treatment modalities and new materials, the use of multiple decontamination methods to clean infected implant surfaces is recommended; moreover, the use of hard tissue laser and/or air abrasion techniques may prove advantageous in the future. Limited evidence supports additional effects on clinical improvement in antimicrobial administration for treating peri-implantitis. Implantoplasty may be justified for decontaminating the implant surfaces in the supracrestal area. Surgical treatment is employed for advanced peri-implantitis, and appropriate surgical methods, such as resection therapy or combination therapy, should be selected based on bone defect configuration. This review presents recent clinical advances in debridement methods for contaminated implant surfaces and regenerative materials for treating peri-implant bone defects. It also proposes a new flowchart to guide the treatment decisions for peri-implant disease.

Bone tissue regeneration in peri-implantitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Objectives

The goal of this systematic review was to analyze, in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), regenerative techniques used to treat peri-implantitis (PI).

Methods

Three databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and On-Line Knowledge Library) were accessed, applying the PICO strategy (Population [P], Intervention [I], Comparison [C], and Outcomes [O]), with the following focused questions: (i) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), is the regenerative surgical treatment (I) clinically effective and predictable compared to non-regenerative (C) to treat PI (O)?"; and (ii) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), the regenerative approach (I), compared to non-regenerative (C), significantly increase the prognosis and implant survival rate in the mid- and long-term (O)?" The inclusion criteria were RCTs published in English between 2012 and 2022, with at least a one-year follow-up, which applied regenerative techniques to treat peri-implantitis. Cochrane's collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias was used.

Main results

Nine articles were included with 404 patients (225 females and 179 males; mean age of 60.44 years). One study evaluated patients after 48 months and another after 88 months. The techniques and devices used were: (i) implantoplasty with Er:YAG laser, (ii) blood concentrate (growth factors), and (iii) EMD, with no statistically significant outcome. Two studies considered the use of titanium granules with a significant increase in radiographic bone identification, whereas regenerative techniques with bone graft (autogenous, alloplastic, and xenograft) were the majority chosen, associated or not, with a collagen membrane. Xenograft had better results radiographically when compared to the autogenous bone graft and presented better results for bone level. There was an overall decrease in bleeding on probing, independent of the control or test group, and a reduction in pocket depth in the groups analyzed. Titanium granules, EMD, Er:YAG laser, and CGF had non-significant results; better results were observed when using bone grafts. The RoB showed a low risk in four studies (44.44%), three with moderate (33.33%), and two with high risk (22.23%).

Conclusion

Surgical regenerative treatment was a predictable option in the management of PI and in improving the clinical parameters of peri-implant tissues in the short term, mainly when using porous titanium granules, alloplastic bone grafts, and xenografts.

Current Status of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Clinical Review for Evidence-Based Decision Making

BACKGROUND

the prevalence of peri-implant diseases is constantly growing, particularly with the increasing use of dental implants. As such, achieving healthy peri-implant tissues has become a key challenge in implant dentistry since it considers the optimal success paradigm. This narrative review aims to highlight the current concepts regarding the disease and summarize the available evidence on treatment approaches clarifying their indications for usage following the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (2017).

METHODS

we reviewed the recent literature and conducted a narrative synthesis of the available evidence on peri-implant diseases.

RESULTS

scientific evidence on case definitions, epidemiology, risk factors, microbiological profile, prevention, and treatment approaches for peri-implant diseases were summarized and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

although there are numerous protocols for managing peri-implant diseases, they are diverse and nonstandardized, with no consensus on the most effective, leading to treatment confusion.

Is Laser Therapy an Adjuvant in the Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis? A Randomized Clinical Trial

(1) Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis may reduce inflammatory markers and halt the progression of the condition to peri-implantitis. Adjunctive laser treatment may have therapeutic benefits that are not yet well known. The aim of this study was to determine the advantages and limitations of laser therapy as an adjuvant in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: A total of 42 patients with at least 2 implants situated in different hemiarches were included in this study and divided into two groups: G1 (received laser therapy) and G2 (no laser therapy). Periodontal health status indices were recorded at the initial moment (T0), and all patients underwent non-surgical debridement therapy accompanied by oral hygiene training. In patients from group G1, one implant site received adjuvant laser therapy (subgroup IL), and the other one did not receive active laser light (IC). The plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) values recorded after 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2) were analyzed and compared with those at T0. (3) Results: PI values considerably reduced at moment T1 and T2 for both G1 and G2 (p = 0.0031). PPD was also reduced, but the difference between the groups and the three recording moments was not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the BOP values between G1 IL and G1 IC for T0/T1 (p = 0.0182) and T1/T2 (p < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference between G2 and G1 IL or G1 IC. (4) Conclusions: Laser therapy as an adjunct to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis leads to a statistically significant reduction in bleeding on probing at 3-month and 6-month re-evaluations. Moreover, it leads to an evident reduction in probing depth but with no statistical significance. These results should be interpreted with caution, and more in-depth research should be performed to create a complete laser therapy protocol for peri-implant mucositis.

Adjunctive Use of Active Compounds such as Chlorhexidine in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis for Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone loss. Without proper control of PiM, the reversible inflammation may advance to peri-implantitis (PI). Mechanical debridement (MD) by the implant surface is the most common and conventional nonsurgical approach to treat PiM but with limitations in complete resolution of diseases. For more than a decade, chlorhexidine (CHX) and active compounds has been investigated in the treatment of PiM. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of CHX treatment in combination with MD versus MD alone or MD+placebo in patients with PiM on their oral health problems.

Methods

A search using electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search up to May 2022 were performed independently by 2 reviewers and included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD+CHX versus MD alone or MD+placebo. The assessment of quality for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Disease resolution of PiM (absence of BOP), IPPD reduction, IBOP% reduction, and PI% reduction after treatment as primary outcomes were selected as the primary outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was for dichotomous outcomes using random effect models. This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020221989).

Results

After independent screening, nine eligible studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed OR of disease resolution between test and control groups amounted to 1.41 (95% CI (0.43, 4.65), P = 0.57, I 2 = 65%) not favoring adjunctive CHX treatment over MD alone. Through subgroup analysis, the results indicated that oral irrigation of CHX may have more benefits on the resolution of PiM. Similarly, CHX did not significantly improve IPPD reduction at both short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Only a short-term effect has been observed at IBOP% reduction (WMD = 13.88, 95% CI (10.94, 16.81), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 9%), IPI reduction (WMD = 0.12, 95% CI (0.09, 0.14), P < 0.00001, I 2 = 0%), and FMPPD reduction (WMD = 0.19 mm, 95% CI (0.03, 0.35), P = 0.02, I 2 = 0%) with adjunctive CHX application.

Conclusion

Adjunctive CHX application may have some benefits to improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment by reducing IBOP%, IPI, and FMPPD in short-term. But these benefits disappeared at medium- and long-term follow-up. In order to achieve better disease resolution of PiM, adjunctive CHX irrigation with MD may be suggested and has positive potential. Well-designed large clinical trials are needed in future.

The Influence of Keratinized Mucosa on the Nonsurgical Therapeutic Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this study aimed to evaluate the response to treatment in implants with peri-implantitis regarding the presence or absence of keratinized mucosa.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred implants with peri-implantitis were treated non-surgically at the Prosthodontics and Occlusion Teaching Unit of the University of Valencia. Records were registered at day zero (recession, bleeding on probing, suppuration, probing depth, bone loss and plaque index), at 1, 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

In both groups, a slight increase in recession and disappearance of suppuration took place, and no bone loss was observed during the following 6 months. However, after an initial reduction, probing depth, bleeding on probing and plaque index increased again in the group without keratinized mucosa (KM).

CONCLUSIONS

Implants with KM presented better results after non-surgical treatment as well as in their medium-term evolution, although it would be advisable to increase the number of samples in order to achieve greater scientific evidence and standardization in the treatment protocol.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The role of keratinized mucosa in the development of peri-implantitis has been mentioned in many publications, but less has been emphasized regarding its influence on the success of the treatment of this pathology. The presence of keratinized mucosa has been found to play a key role in the evolution of the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The amount of keratinized mucosa should be considered in the treatment of peri-implantitis, as well as when planning connective tissue grafts accompanying the decontamination of implants in the absence of keratinized mucosa.

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.

Adjuvant use of multispecies probiotic in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

This randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the effects of multispecies probiotic containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus HN001™, Lactobacillus paracasei Lpc-37®, and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis HN019™ as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) on changes in bleeding on probing (BOP) in edentulous patients with peri-implant mucositis (PiM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to test (probiotic) or control (placebo) groups. All sites with PiM received MD and topical gel application (probiotic or placebo) at baseline and 12 weeks. After initial MD, patients consumed probiotic or placebo capsules twice a day for 12 weeks. Clinical (modified sulcus bleeding index [mSBI]; modified plaque index [mPI]; probing depth [PD]; and BOP) and immunological parameters were collected at baseline and after 12 and 24 weeks. Data were statistically analysed (p < .05).

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients with PiM were recruited. The test group presented higher prevalence (p < .05) of cases of restored peri-implant health at 24 weeks than did the control group (72.2% and 33.3%, respectively). No significant difference was observed between test (n = 18) and control (n = 18) groups for mPI and PD. mSBI %-score 0 was higher in the test group than in the control group at 24 weeks (p < .05). When compared with baseline, both groups presented reduced BOP at 12 and 24 weeks (p < .05). BOP was lower in the test group than in the control group at 12 (mean difference = -14.54%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -28.87 to 0.22; p = .0163) and 24 (mean difference = -12.56%; 95% CI = -26.51 to 1.37; p = .0090) weeks. At 24 weeks, only the test group presented lower levels of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α than those at baseline (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The multispecies probiotic (administered locally and systemically) containing L. rhamnosus HN001™, L. paracasei Lpc-37®, and B. lactis HN019™ as an adjunct to repeated MD promotes additional clinical and immunological benefits in the treatment of PiM in edentulous patients (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04187222).

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Systemic Antibiotic Therapy in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

Research has been conducted into the advantages of the systemic administration of antibiotics. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of systemic antibiotic administration in the treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of bleeding on probing (BoP) and probing pocket depth (PPD). Literature searches were performed across PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify randomized controlled trials and observational clinical studies. After peri-implantitis treatment, PPD was reduced by 0.1 mm (p = 0.58; IC 95% [-0.24, 0.47]), indicating a non-significant effect of antibiotic administration on PPD. The BoP odds ratio value was 1.15 (p = 0.5; IC 95% [0.75, 1.75]), indicating that the likelihood of bleeding is almost similar between the test and control groups. Secondary outcomes were found, such as reduced clinical attachment level, lower suppuration and recession, less bone loss, and a reduction in total bacterial counts. In the treatment of peri-implantitis, the systemic antibiotic application reduces neither PPD nor BoP. Therefore, the systemic administration of antibiotics, in the case of peri-implantitis, should be rethought in light of the present results, contributing to address the problem of increasing antibiotic resistance.

Fusobacterium nucleatum: The Opportunistic Pathogen of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases

Peri-implant diseases are considered to be a chronic destructive inflammatory destruction/damage occurring in soft and hard peri-implant tissues during the patient’s perennial use after implant restoration and have attracted much attention because of their high incidence. Although most studies seem to suggest that the pathogenesis of peri-implant diseases is similar to that of periodontal diseases and that both begin with microbial infection, the specific mechanism of peri-implant diseases remains unclear. As an oral opportunistic pathogen, Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) has been demonstrated to be vital for the occurrence and development of many oral infectious diseases, especially periodontal diseases. More notably, the latest relevant studies suggest that F. nucleatum may contribute to the occurrence and development of peri-implant diseases. Considering the close connection between peri-implant diseases and periodontal diseases, a summary of the role of Fusobacterium nucleatum in periodontal diseases may provide more research directions and ideas for the peri-implantation mechanism. In this review, we summarize the effects of F. nucleatum on periodontal diseases by biofilm formation, host infection, and host response, and then we establish the relationship between periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Based on the above aspects, we discuss the importance and potential value of F. nucleatum in peri-implant diseases.

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.

Peri-Implant Diseases

Osseointegrated dental implants have become an increasingly popular modality of treatment for the replacement of absent or lost teeth because of its high rates of long-term survival when used to support various types of dental prostheses. However, complications and implant failure can still occur and are considered by many clinicians as a major obstacle for implant treatment. Biological complications mainly refer to inflammatory conditions of the soft tissues and bone surrounding implants and their restorative components, which are induced by the accumulation of bacterial biofilm. Two clinical varieties may be distinguished: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible, plaque-induced inflammatory lesion confined to the peri-implant soft tissue unit, whereas peri-implantitis is an extension of peri-implant mucositis to involve the bone supporting the implant. Diagnosing and managing these biological complications is of utmost importance for the implant surgeon and dental practitioner. This review encompasses the etiology, diagnostic aspects, prevention, and management of biological complications.

Local/Topical Antibiotics for Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified (n = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.

The microbiome of dental and peri-implant subgingival plaque during peri-implant mucositis therapy: A randomized clinical trial

Aim

To assess the microbial effects of mechanical debridement in conjunction with a mouthrinse on sites with peri‐implant mucositis and gingivitis.

Materials and methods

Eighty‐nine patients with peri‐implant mucositis were included in a double‐blinded, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial with mechanical debridement and 1‐month use of either delmopinol, chlorhexidine (CHX), or a placebo mouthrinse. Submucosal and subgingival plaque samples of implants and teeth were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months, processed for 16S V4 rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and analysed bioinformatically.

Results

The sites with peri‐implant mucositis presented with a less diverse and less anaerobic microbiome. Exposure to delmopinol or CHX, but not to the placebo mouthrinse resulted in microbial changes after 1 month. The healthy sites around the teeth harboured a more diverse and more anaerobe‐rich microbiome than the healthy sites around the implants.

Conclusions

Peri‐implant sites with mucositis harbour ecologically less complex and less anaerobic biofilms with lower biomass than patient‐matched dental sites with gingivitis while eliciting an equal inflammatory response. Adjunctive antimicrobial therapy in addition to mechanical debridement does affect both dental and peri‐implant biofilm composition in the short term, resulting in a less dysbiotic subgingival biofilm.

Adjunctive use of metronidazole-minocycline ointment in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical benefits of local antibiotics as an adjunct to nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis have been widely reported, but most studies evaluated incipient peri-implantitis lesions, and showed incomplete treatment success rates.

PURPOSE

To assess the clinical and microbiological outcomes of administering metronidazole in combination with minocycline as a local adjunct to the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and eighteen subjects with peri-implantitis were recruited in a four-center, three-arm, and 12-week randomized controlled trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive one of the following treatments: (a) MM-mechanical debridement + metronidazole-minocycline ointment, (b) MC-mechanical debridement + minocycline ointment, (c) NST-mechanical debridement only.

RESULTS

Except for four subjects who was excluded during the trial, a total of 114 patients with 114 implants (one implant per each patient) finally completed the trial and were included in the analyses. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the treatment success rates (absence of bleeding or suppuration on probing, and sites showing pocket probing depth [PPD] ≥5 mm) on at 12 weeks were higher in MM-group patients (31.6%) and MC-group patients (20.5%) compared to NST-group patients (2.7%; p = 0.011 and 0.040, respectively). Subjects with deepest PPD ≥8 mm showed a significant difference in the PPD reduction between MM and MC groups at week 4 (p = 0.025) and week 12 (p = 0.047). Detection ratio of Tannerella forsythia was significantly lower for MM group than MC group (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Additive use of either MM or MC results in significantly higher treatment success rates compared to sole mechanical debridement in nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Moreover, MM contributes to a significantly greater reduction in the PPD compared to MC in deep pockets (cris.nih.go.kr KCT0004557).

Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis: a two-center 12-month randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare surgical (ST) and non-surgical (NST) debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis in a two-center randomized trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five individuals with 63 implants with probing depth (PPD) ≥5mm, bleeding on probing (BOP), and radiographic bone loss ≥2mm were included. In the NST (30 implants), submucosal debridement was performed. In the ST (33 implants), a mucoperiosteal flap was raised and surfaces were decontaminated only by debridement as performed in NST. Clinical parameters and radiographs were compared at baseline and after 12 months. Means and standard errors were reported.

RESULTS

PPD considering all implant sites reduced significantly in NST from 4.14±0.25 to 3.25±0.18mm. In ST, PPD also significantly changed (3.74±0.22 to 3.00±0.29mm). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. For deep sites (≥7mm), PPD was 7.82±0.20mm at baseline and reduced to 5.10±0.30mm in NST, while in ST group, it was 7.11±0.11mm and changed to 5.22±0.91mm (between-groups p value=0.51). BOP significantly reduced from ~60 to 35% of all sites in both groups, without significant differences between them. When sites with radiographic bone level ≥3mm at baseline were analyzed, there was a significant difference between groups in bone gain after 12 months in favor of ST (ST=0.78±0.30mm compared to NST=0.25mm±0.13; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical and non-surgical debridement for the treatment of peri-implantitis present similar clinical outcomes. Bone levels were better improved in ST than NST for sites with higher initial bone loss.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The treatment of peri-implantitis is still a challenge in clinical practice, since less than half of affected implants achieve health after surgical or non-surgical debridement. Considering the lack of clinically relevant differences between these two treatments, non-surgical debridement should be considered the first therapeutic choice for peri-implantitis, mainly mild to moderate cases.

Peri-implantitis is not periodontitis: Scientific discoveries shed light on microbiome-biomaterial interactions that may determine disease phenotype

Peri-implantitis is an immune-mediated biological complication that is attributed to bacterial biofilms on the implant surface. As both periodontitis and peri-implantitis have similar inflammatory phenotypes when assessed cross-sectionally, treatment protocols for peri-implantitis were modeled according to those used for periodontitis. However, lack of efficacy of antimicrobial treatments targeting periodontal pathogens coupled with recent discoveries from open-ended microbial investigation studies create a heightened need to revisit the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis compared with that of periodontitis. The tale of biofilm formation on intraoral solid surfaces begins with pellicle formation, which supports initial bacterial adhesion. The differences between implant- and tooth-bound biofilms appear as early as bacterial adhesion commences. The electrostatic forces and ionic bonding that drive initial bacterial adhesion are fundamentally different in the presence of titanium dioxide or other implant alloys vs mineralized organic hydroxyapatite, respectively. Moreover, the interaction between metal surfaces and the oral environment leads to the release of implant degradation products into the peri-implant sulcus, which exposes the microbiota to increased environmental stress and may alter immune responses to bacteria. Clinically, biofilms found in peri-implantitis are resistant to beta-lactam antibiotics, which are effective against periodontal communities even as monotherapies and demonstrate a composition different from that of biofilms found in periodontitis; these facts strongly suggest that a new model of peri-implant infection is required.

Efficacy of Probiotics as Adjunctive Therapy to Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is an inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding the dental implant and is the precursor of the destructive inflammatory peri-implantitis. PiM is usually reversible, but difficult to eradicate. Mechanical debridement (MD) is the conventional procedure to treat PiM although not enough to reach a complete resolution. Recently, probiotics have been considered in the treatment of peri-implant disease. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of the probiotic therapy combined with MD compared with MD alone or MD + placebo in patients with PiM.

Methods: A search using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search were performed up to November 2019 by two reviewers independently of each other. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD + probiotic vs. MD were included. The quality assessment for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Probing depth reduction was selected as the primary outcome. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, using random effect models. This review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020213625).

Results: Five eligible publications were included in this systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. As regards the implant, the WMD in the probing depth reduction between the test and control group was −0.12 mm [95% CI (−0.38, 0.14), p = 0.38], meaning that the adjunctive probiotic therapy was not improving PiM compared with MD alone or MD + placebo. The meta-analysis also showed no statistically significant results in the secondary outcomes (reduction of full mouth plaque index and full mouth bleeding on probing, absence of bleeding on probing at implant level, and changes in microorganism load and species).

Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the additional use of probiotics did not improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment regarding clinical and microbial outcomes, at least in a short-term.

Implant functionalization with mesoporous silica: A promising antibacterial strategy, but does such an implant osseointegrate?

Objectives

New strategies for implant surface functionalization in the prevention of peri‐implantitis while not compromising osseointegration are currently explored. The aim of this in vivo study was to assess the osseointegration of a titanium‐silica composite implant, previously shown to enable controlled release of therapeutic concentrations of chlorhexidine, in the Göttingen mini‐pig oral model.

Material and Methods

Three implant groups were designed: macroporous titanium implants (Ti‐Porous); macroporous titanium implants infiltrated with mesoporous silica (Ti‐Porous + SiO₂); and conventional titanium implants (Ti‐control). Mandibular last premolar and first molar teeth were extracted bilaterally and implants were installed. After 1 month healing, the bone in contact with the implant and the bone regeneration in the peri‐implant gap was evaluated histomorphometrically.

Results

Bone‐to‐implant contact and peri‐implant bone volume for Ti‐Porous versus Ti‐Porous + SiO₂ implants did not differ significantly, but were significantly higher in the Ti‐Control group compared with Ti‐Porous + SiO₂ implants. Functionalization of titanium implants via infiltration of a SiO₂ phase into the titanium macropores does not seem to inhibit implant osseointegration. Yet, the importance of the implant macro‐design, in particular the screw thread design in a marginal gap implant surgery set‐up, was emphasized by the outstanding results of the Ti‐Control implant.

Conclusions

Next‐generation implants made of macroporous Ti infiltrated with mesoporous SiO₂ do not seem to compromise the osseointegration process. Such implant functionalization may be promising for the prevention and treatment of peri‐implantitis given the evidenced potential of mesoporous SiO₂ for controlled drug release.

Current Approaches for the Non-surgical Management of Peri-implant Diseases

Purpose of the Review

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory reactions to bacterial infections affecting osseointegrated dental implants. In recent years, scientific interest on this topic has increased, as demonstrated by the appearance of a large number of protocols for treating peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI). The aim of the present narrative review is to provide an overview of the recent (e.g., 2014–present) published protocols for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Recent Findings

Several adjunctive measures for mechanical debridement have been proposed and investigated to achieve implant surface decontamination and resolution of mucosal inflammation. However, none of the adjunctive measures has been shown to significantly improve peri-implant conditions compared with non-surgical mechanical debridement alone.

Summary

Non-surgical approaches for the treatment of peri-implant diseases have been proved to be reliable in reducing clinical signs of peri-implant inflammation (e.g., BoP), although with limited capability to achieve complete disease resolution. Due to the limited benefits from the use of currently proposed adjunctive methods (e.g., chlorhexidine, lasers, photodynamic therapy, systemic probiotics) their application is not recommended until further investigations prove their clinical utility.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Periimplantitis

PURPOSE

Periimplantitis has become an emerging challenge faced by practicing dentists worldwide. When treating periimplantitis, we should attempt to manage this problem via nonsurgical therapies that include addressing all modifiable systemic risk factors and local contributing factors. Hence, the aim of this narrative review was to examine published studies on nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis and evaluate their effectiveness and limitations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed database up to December 31, 2017. Current published clinical approaches focused on mechanical debridement, adjunctive antiseptic therapy, adjunctive antibiotic therapy, laser-assisted therapy, and combination approaches were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

Nonsurgical therapy of periimplantitis may result in complete healing of the disease and the patient is then placed on a supportive maintenance program. If the disease is not resolved and surgical intervention is not an option, active nonsurgical retreatment may be considered. In many cases where disease is not resolved, surgical therapy or implant removal could be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical treatment of periimplantitis usually provides clinical improvements in reducing bleeding tendency and in some cases pocket reduction. Early diagnosis, detection, and intervention remain the key for managing periimplantitis.

Q-Switch Nd:YAG Laser-Assisted Decontamination of Implant Surface

Peri-implantitis (PI) is an inflammatory disease of peri-implant tissues, it represents the most frequent complication of dental implants. Evidence revealed that microorganisms play the chief role in causing PI. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the cleaning of contaminated dental implant surfaces by means of the Q-switch Nd:YAG (Neodymium-doped Yttrium Aluminum Garnet) laser and an increase in temperature at lased implant surfaces during the cleaning process. Seventy-eight implants (titanium grade 4) were used (Euroteknika, Sallanches, France). Thirty-six sterile implants and forty-two contaminated implants were collected from failed clinical implants for different reasons, independent from the study. Thirty-six contaminated implants were partially irradiated by Q-switch Nd:YAG laser (1064 nm). Six other contaminated implants were used for temperature rise evaluation. All laser irradiations were calibrated by means of a powermetter in order to evaluate the effective delivered energy. The irradiation conditions delivered per pulse on the target were effectively: energy density per pulse of 0.597 J/cm², pick powers density of 56 mW/cm², 270 mW per pulse with a spot diameter of 2.4 mm, and with repetition rate of 10 Hz for pulse duration of 6 ns. Irradiation was performed during a total time of 2 s in a non-contact mode at a distance of 0.5 mm from implant surfaces. The parameters were chosen according to the results of a theoretical modeling calculation of the Nd:YAG laser fluency on implant surface. Evaluation of contaminants removal showed that the cleaning of the irradiated implant surfaces was statistically similar to those of sterile implants (p-value ≤ 0.05). SEM analysis confirmed that our parameters did not alter the lased surfaces. The increase in temperature generated at lased implant surfaces during cleaning was below 1 °C. According to our findings, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser with short pulse duration in nanoseconds is able to significantly clean contaminated implant surfaces. Irradiation parameters used in our study can be considered safe for periodontal tissue.

Management of peri-implantitis - A contemporary synopsis

Prevalence of peri-implant complication is expected to be on the rise with the increased number of implants being placed. Depending on the degree of osseous involvement, the clinician needs to decide if the treatment goal is to arrest the disease progression, regeneration or explantation and replacement. Host's medical status, defect configuration, aesthetic outcome, ability to access for plaque control post-treatment, and the patient's wishes are key factors to consider. The purpose of this review is to provide a contemporary synopsis on the management of peri-implantitis with emphasis on explantation. Guidance on the identification of factors/situations where salvaging an implant may be less favourable is discussed and the various techniques to remove a fractured, or peri-implantitis-affected non-mobile implant are described.

A Topical Desiccant Agent in Association with Manual Debridement in the Initial Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis: A Clinical and Microbiological Pilot Study

In patients presenting mucositis, effective sub-gingival debridement is crucial to prevent peri-implantitis. The aim of this randomized study was to assess the three-month (T1) effects of a locally delivered liquid desiccant agent with molecular hygroscopic properties, in association with manual debridement, at sites with peri-implant mucositis. Twenty-three patients presenting at least one implant with no radiographically detectable bone loss, a pocket probing depth (PPD) ≥ 4 mm, and bleeding on probing (BOP), were included. At baseline (T0), patients were randomly assigned to receive the aforementioned desiccant agent before debridement (Test-Group), or a Chlorhexidine 1% disinfectant gel after debridement (Control-Group). Treatments were repeated after seven and 14 days. Peri-implant soft tissue assessment [PPD, BOP, Modified Bleeding Index (mBI), Visible Plaque Index (VPI), and Modified Plaque Index (mPLI)] and microbial sampling were performed at T0 and T1. At T1 the Test-Group presented significantly greater reductions for BOP, mBI, VPI, and mPLI. Concerning the deepest sites of the treated implants, both groups showed statistically significant reductions for BOP and mBI between T0 and T1. Furthermore, the Test-Group exhibited a significant decrease in anaerobic bacteria. Despite these valid outcomes, a complete resolution of the inflammatory conditions was not achieved by any of the groups.

Nonsurgical therapy for teeth and implants-When and why?

As periodontal and peri-implant diseases represent opportunistic infections, antiinfective therapy is the method of choice. Correctly performed, the treatment outcomes will include resolution of the inflammation concomitant with shrinkage of the tissues, reflected in reduced probing depths. Depending on the patient data obtained after initial antiinfective therapy, further - mostly surgical - treatment may be rendered to reach the goals of a healthy periodontium and peri-implant tissues. Patient compliance is as important as operator skills for optimal treatment outcomes. Regenerative therapy may be applied in compliant patients and for appropriate defects. This article depicts the historical development of periodontal therapy during the 20th century and addresses the various outcome parameters to be used in daily decision making. Obviously, nonsurgical therapy has gained clinical relevance, resulting in highly satisfactory treatment outcomes in many cases. The critical probing depth above which positive attachment gain is registered varies from one treatment modality to another. It is a concept that helps facilitate decision making for additional therapeutic measures after initial therapy. Treatment of peri-implant mucositis prevents development of peri-implantitis. Hence, nonsurgical treatment of mucositis is frequently performed during the continuous monitoring of oral implants. This chapter of Periodontology 2000 presents evidence for the prevention and therapy of peri-implant diseases.

Hydrophobicity of graphene as a driving force for inhibiting biofilm formation of pathogenic bacteria and fungi

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the surface and wettability characteristics and the microbial biofilm interaction of graphene coating on titanium.

METHODS

Graphene was deposited on titanium (Control) via a liquid-free technique. The transfer was performed once (TiGS), repeated two (TiGD) and five times (TiGV) and characterized by AFM (n=10), Raman spectroscopy (n=10), contact angle and SFE (n=5). Biofilm formation (n=3) to Streptococcus mutans, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Candida albicans was evaluated after 24h by CV assay, CFU, XTT and confocal microscopy. Statistics were performed by one-way Anova, Tukey's tests and Pearson's correlation analysis at a pre-set significance level of 5 %.

RESULTS

Raman mappings revealed coverage yield of 82 % for TiGS and ≥99 % for TiGD and TiGV. Both TiGD and TiGV presented FWHM>44cm^-1 and I_D/I_G ratio<0.12, indicating multiple graphene layers and occlusion of defects. The contact angle was significantly higher for TiGD and TiGV (110° and 117°) comparing to the Control (70°). The SFE was lower for TiGD (13.8mN/m) and TiGV (12.1mN/m) comparing to Control (38.3mN/m). TiGD was selected for biofilm assays and exhibited significant reduction in biofilm formation for all microorganisms compared to Control. There were statistical correlations between the high contact angle and low SFE of TiGD and decreased biofilm formation.

SIGNIFICANCE

TiGD presented high quality and coverage and decreased biofilm formation for all species. The increased hydrophobicity of graphene films was correlated with the decreased biofilm formation for various species.

Microbial Etiology and Antimicrobial Therapy of Peri-implantitis: A Comprehensive Review

Introduction:

Implants have turned out to be a well-established therapy in dental practice for the replacement of missing teeth and restoration of function.

Peri-implant disease denotes the inflammatory condition of surrounding soft and hard tissues.

Two terminologies are covered under the impression of peri-implant pathology; peri-implantitis and mucositis. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible inflammatory process limited to soft tissues around an implant. Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition of hard and soft tissue around the dental implant.

Microbial Etiology:

Bacterial infections are the most common cause of peri-implantitis. It is a variable poly-microbial infection, although generally dominated by Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria Anti-infective therapy should be included in the treatment regime, while treating the peri-implant disease. Antimicrobial therapy includes local debridement, antibiotic therapy and surface decontamination of the implant.

Conclusion:

The current article gives a detailed overview of microbial etiology, antimicrobial therapy and its limitations for the treatment of peri-implant Pathology.

Randomized clinical trial of the effects of azithromycin use in the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this clinical trial was to establish a proof of concept that the adjunctive use of systemic azithromycin (AZM) in conjunction with mechanical debridement has an increased benefit in reducing soft tissue inflammation in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial, the treatment group (nine patients) received AZM as well as mechanical debridement in a single course of treatment, whereas the control group (eight patients) received a placebo and mechanical debridement. The primary outcome variables studied were bleeding on probing, suppuration, pocket probing depth and gingival recession. The secondary variables studied were gingival index, plaque index, microbiological and interleukin-1β status. The observation period was 6 months.

RESULTS

Over the 6 months' observation period, the treatment patients showed a consistently greater reduction of gingival inflammation and an improvement in soft tissue healing than the control patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjunctive use of a single course of systemic azithromycin can assist in the control of peri-implant mucositis in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

Treatment of periimplant mucositis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the most effective treatment for periimplant mucositis in patients with dental implants compared with a control group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed (MEDLINE) literature search was made of articles published up until October 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were stratified according to their level of quality using the Jadad scale and levels of evidence (University of Oxford).

RESULTS

The combinations of search terms resulted in a list of 371 titles. Of these, 114 references were finally reviewed. Finally, 7 RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were thus selected for inclusion in the systematic review. Chlorhexidine, the administration of azithromycin, and glycine powder air polishing are not effective for the treatment of periimplant mucositis. The only effective treatment seems to be the use of toothpaste with 0.3% triclosan.

CONCLUSION

Definitions of periimplant mucositis vary in the literature, and no clear criteria have been established regarding the diagnosis and treatment of this disorder. It highlights our lack of uniform treatment and need to establish additional research to fully provide effective treatments for this common condition. More, larger, and longer-term RCTs are needed in this periimplant disease.

Non-Surgical Therapy for Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The purpose of this paper was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant diseases including both, mucositis and peri-implantitis lesions.

Material and Methods

An electronic search in two different databases was performed including MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE from 2011 to 2016. Human studies reporting non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis with more than 10 implants and at least 6 months follow up published in English language were evaluated. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the different methods of decontamination employed in the included investigations. Risk of bias assessment was elaborated for included investigations.

Results

Twenty-five articles were identified of which 14 were further evaluated and included in the analysis. Due to significant heterogeneity in between included studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a systematic descriptive review was performed. Included investigations reported the used of different methods for implant decontamination, including self-performed cleaning techniques, and professionally delivered treatment such as laser, photodynamic therapy, supra-/sub-mucosal mechanical debridement, and air-abrasive devices. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 60 months.

Conclusions

Non-surgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis seems to be effective while modest and not-predictable outcomes are expected for peri-implantitis lesions. Limitations include different peri-implant diseases definitions, treatment approaches, as well as different implant designs/surfaces and defect characteristics.

Microbial Profiles and Detection Techniques in Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review

Objectives

To describe the microbial profiles of peri-implant diseases and the main detection methods.

Material and Methods

A literature search was performed in MEDLINE via PubMed database to identify studies on microbial composition of peri-implant surfaces in humans published in the last 5 years. Studies had to have clear implant status definition for health, peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis and specifically study microbial composition of the peri-implant sulcus.

Results

A total of 194 studies were screened and 47 included. Peri-implant sites are reported to be different microbial ecosystems compared to periodontal sites. However, differences between periodontal and peri-implant health and disease are not consistent across all studies, possibly due to the bias introduced by the microbial detection technique. New methods non species-oriented are being used to find ‘unexpected’ microbiota not previously described in these scenarios.

Conclusions

Microbial profile of peri-implant diseases usually includes classic periodontopathogens. However, correlation between studies is difficult, particularly because of the use of different detection methods. New metagenomic techniques should be promoted for future studies to avoid detection bias.

Systemic antibiotic therapy does not significantly improve outcome in a rat model of implant-associated osteomyelitis induced by Methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus

INTRODUCTION

Treatment of implant-associated osteomyelitis regularly involves the use of systemic antibiotics in addition to surgical intervention. However, it remains unclear if perioperative systemic application of bactericide substances can improve overall outcome in models of severe intramedullary infection. The present study investigated the use of systemic gentamicin in addition to a controlled local release from a highly lipophilic gentamicinpalmitate compound while the previous study showed efficacy of sole antibiotic implant-coating.

METHODS

Forty male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into two groups receiving an intramedullary femoral injection of 10(2) CFU of a common methicillin susceptible Staphylococcus aureus strain (MSSA Rosenbach). Group I received an uncoated implant whereas group II received a coated implant. All animals received a single shot intraperitoneal application of gentamicinsulfate directly after wound closure while the historical control group III (n = 20) had no antibiotic treatment at all. Animals were observed for 28 and 42 days. Serum haptoglobin and relative weight gain were assessed as well as roll over cultures of explanted femur nails and histological scores of periprosthetic infection in dissected femora.

RESULTS

Systemic application of gentamicin combined with antibiotic-coated implant did not further reduce bacterial growth significantly compared with systemic or local antibiotic application alone. Combined local and systemic therapy reduced serum haptoglobin significantly after day 7, 28 and 42 whereas systemic application alone did not compare to controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Systemic perioperative and implant-associated application of antibiotics were both comparably effective to treat implant-associated infections whereas the combined antibiotic therapy further reduced systemic signs of infection time dependent.

Management of peri-implantitis: a systematic review, 2010-2015

Peri-implantitis or Periimplantitis is characterized as an inflammatory reaction that affects the hard and soft tissue, which results in loss of supporting bone and pocket formation surrounding the functioning osseointegrated implant. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The data sources used was PubMed. Searches of this database were restricted to English language publications from January 2010 to June 2015. All Randomized Controlled Trials describing the treatments of peri-implantitis of human studies with a follow up of at least 6 months were included. Eligibility and quality were assessed and two reviewers extracted the data. Data extraction comprised of type, intensity provider, and location of the intervention. A total of 20 publications were included (10 involving surgical and 10 involving non-surgical mechanical procedure). The non-surgical approach involves the mechanical surface debridement using carbon or titanium currettes, laser light, and antibiotics whereas, surgical approach involves implantoplasty, elevation of mucoperiosteal flap and removal of peri-inflammatory granulation tissue followed by surface decontamination and bone grafting. This study reveals that non-surgical therapy tends to remove only the local irritant from the peri-implantitis surface with or without some additional adjunctive therapies agents or device. Hence, non-surgical therapy is not helpful in osseous defect. Surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach removes the residual sub-gingival deposits additionally reducing the peri-implantitis pocket. Although there is no specific recommendation for the treatment of peri-implantitis, surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach showed the positive outcome.

Systemic antibiotics and the risk of superinfection in peri-implantitis

Peri-implantitis has emerged in the last few years as a complication difficult to resolve. The etiopathogenesis consensus is mainly attributed to bacteria. Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, a PubMed/Medline literature search was performed using the US National Library of Medicine database up to 2015 to analyze available scientific data on the rationale and risk of superinfection associated to systemic antimicrobials in human peri-implant disease. A hand search was also conducted on relevant medical and microbiology journals. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was independently assessed for quality on the selected papers. Proposed combined therapies use broad-spectrum antibiotics to halt the disease progression. A major associated risk, particularly when prescribed empirically without microbiological follow-up, is the undetected development of superinfections and overgrowth of opportunistic pathogens difficult to eradicate. Peri-implant superinfections with opportunistic bacteria, yeast and viruses, are plausible risks associated to the use of systemic antibiotics in immunocompetent individuals. Lack of microbiological follow-up and antibiotic susceptibility testing may lead to ongoing microbial challenges that exacerbate the disease progression. The increased proliferation of antimicrobial resistance, modern implant surface topography and indiscriminative empiric antibiotic regimens may promote the escalation of peri-implant disease in years to come. A personalized 3-month supportive therapy may help prevent risks by sustaining a normal ecological balance, decreasing specific pathogen proportions and maintaining ideal plaque control.

A Classification Proposal for Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis: A Critical Update

Definitions of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis vary in the literature, and no clear criteria have been established for the diagnosis and treatment of such disorders. This study proposes a classification for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis based on the severity of the disease, using a combination of peri-implant clinical and radiological parameters to classify severity into several stages (Stage 0A and 0B = peri-implant mucositis, and Stage I to IV = periimplantitis). Following a review of the literature on the subject and justification of the proposed peri-implant disease classification, the latter aims to facilitate professional communication and data collection for research and community health studies.