The successful use of osseointegrated implants for the treatment of the recalcitrant periodontal patient

Effects of Scutellaria baicalensis Extract-Induced Exosomes on the Periodontal Stem Cells and Immune Cells under Fine Dust

In adverse environments, fine dust is linked to a variety of health disorders, including cancers, cardiovascular, neurological, renal, reproductive, motor, systemic, and respiratory diseases. Although PM10 is associated with oral inflammation and cancer, there is limited research on biomaterials that prevent damage caused by fine dust. In this study, we evaluated the effects of biomaterials using microRNA profiling, flow cytometry, conventional PCR, immunocytochemistry, Alizarin O staining, and ELISA. Compared to SBE (Scutellaria baicalensis extract), the preventive effectiveness of SBEIEs (SBE-induced exosomes) against fine dust was approximately two times higher. Furthermore, SBEIEs promoted cellular differentiation of periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs) into osteoblasts, periodontal ligament cells (PDLCs), and pulp progenitor cells (PPCs), enhancing immune modulation for oral health against fine dust. In terms of immune modulation, SBEIEs activated the secretion of cytokines such as IL-10, LL-37, and TGF-β in T cells, B cells, and macrophages, while attenuating the secretion of MCP-1 in macrophages. MicroRNA profiling revealed that significantly modulated miRNAs in SBEIEs influenced four biochemical categories: apoptosis, cellular differentiation, immune activation, and anti-inflammation. These findings suggest that SBEIEs are an optimal biomaterial for developing oral health care products. Additionally, this study proposes functional microRNA candidates for the development of pharmaceutical liposomes.

Prevalence of Peri-Implant Disease in Patients with Stage III or IV Periodontitis: Results of a Long-Term Follow-Up from a Specialized Periodontal Practice

The aim of this study was to examine the conditions of implants that had been in function for 5-17 years in stage III/IV periodontitis patients of a specialized periodontal practice. There were 83 patients (43 female/40 male, mean age 64.4 (9.69) years), with a total of 213 implants, who participated in the study. Assessments included periodontal and peri-implant probing depths, bleeding and plaque scores, and a radiographic examination. Smoking habits, participation in a supportive care program (SCP), and the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) scores were recorded. A total of 44 patients presented with stage III periodontitis, and 39 with stage IV. In all, 85% of patients had adhered to regular SCP. On an implant/patient level, peri-implant health was found in 37.1.7% (79 implants)/24.1% (20 patients), peri-implant mucositis in 58.7% (125 implants)/66.3% (55 patients), and peri-implantitis in 4.2% (9 implants)/9.6% (8 patients). IDRA scores showed 30.5% of implants at moderate and 69.5% at high risk. The present long-term analysis shows a high prevalence of peri-implant disease in patients treated for advanced periodontitis. These findings underline the challenges involved in the long-term maintenance of oral health in stage III/IV periodontitis patients restored with dental implants.

Clinical and Radiological Characterization of the Long-Term Association between Unaffected/Minimally Affected Implants and History of Severe Periodontitis: A Retrospective Study

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research were to compare, retrospectively, the clinical and radiographic modifications of periodontal parameters and peri-implant conditions and to analyze the relationship between the changes in periodontal parameters and peri-implant conditions over a mean follow-up period of 7.6 years in a treated population with progressive/uncontrolled periodontitis and at least one unaffected/minimally affected implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen partially edentulous patients having 77 implants inserted, with a mean age of 54.84 ± 7.60 years, were matched for age, gender, compliance, smoking status, general health, and implant characteristics. Periodontal parameters were evaluated in the remaining teeth. Means per teeth and implants were used when making comparisons.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and final examination in teeth for tPPD, tCAL and MBL. Furthermore, at 7.6 years, statistically significant differences existed between implants and teeth with regard to iCAL and tCAL (p = 0.03). Multiple regression analyses were performed and revealed a significant association regarding iPPD and CBL with smoking and periodontal diagnosis. In addition, FMBS was significantly associated with CBL. Unaffected/minimally affected implants were found more frequently in the posterior mandible, with longer lengths (>10 mm) and small diameters (<4 mm), including in screwed multi-unit bridges.

CONCLUSIONS

The study results appear to reflect minimally affected mean crestal bone-level loss around implants in comparison to the marginal bone-level loss around teeth when exposed to uncontrolled severe periodontal disease over a mean period of observation of 7.6 years, while the unaffected/minimally affected implants seemed to benefit from a combination of clinical factors, including posterior mandibular position, smaller diameters, and screwed multi-unit restorations.

An Update on the Treatment of Periimplantitis

As implant placement increases within all dental specialties, it is expected that the number of suboptimal results will increase, as well. The goal of this article is to provide clinicians with an outline of the management of periimplantitis cases, ranging from simple to complex. It will review signs and symptoms, diagnosis, case selection, and armamentarium. In addition, this chapter will discuss basic techniques which can be utilized at various stages to salvage the compromised implant.

Transitioning a patient with failing anterior dentition and pre-existing posterior implant-supported fixed restorations using a staged approach

This clinical report describes a staged approach using a removable partial denture (RPD) and a transitional implant-supported overdenture as interim prostheses in treating a failing anterior dentition with posterior implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPD), until the time a full-arch fixed implant-supported prosthesis may be inserted. The RPD replaced the anterior teeth following their extraction and during implant osseointegration. The implant-supported overdenture rehabilitated the arch during the fabrication phase of the definitive restoration.

Role of Dental Implant Superstructure in Patients with Severe Periodontal Disease

Many studies have investigated the relationship between periodontal disease and the onset of peri-implantitis. It is important to devise practical measures for preventing the development of peri-implantitis in patients with periodontal disease if the success of implant treatment is to be secured. Here, we report the role of the superstructure in two cases of implant treatment in patients with severe periodontal disease. Both patients had severe periodontitis and underwent implant treatment after improving the state of the disease, thereby ensuring that the implant superstructure could be maintained. Both cases remained stable after implant treatment. The results indicate that proper periodontal treatment prior to implant treatment leads to long-term success. In addition, it is necessary to use an implant superstructure that reduces plaque accumulation in preventing peri-implantitis.

Effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To review the literature on the effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The present review addresses the following focus question: Is there a difference for implant survival, mean marginal bone loss, and the incidence of bleeding on probing in periodontally compromised patients receiving a machined dental implant or rough surface dental implant?

METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on studies published until May 2018 to collect information about the effect of machined, moderately rough, and rough dental implant surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The outcome variables implant survival, mean marginal bone level, and the incidence of peri-implantitis and bleeding on probing were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain an accurate estimation of the overall, cumulative results.

RESULTS

Out of 2411 articles, six studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the implant survival and implant mean marginal bone loss revealed a risk ratio of 2.92 (CI 95% 0.45, 18.86) for implant failure and a total mean difference of - 0.09 (CI 95% - 0.31, 0.14) for implant mean marginal bone loss measured in a total group of 215 implants, both not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to lack of long-term data (> 5 years), the heterogeneity and variability in study designs and lack of reporting on confounding factors, definitive conclusions on differences in implant survival, and mean marginal bone loss between machined and moderate rough implants in periodontally compromised patients cannot be drawn. Future well-designed long-term randomized controlled trials are necessary to reveal that machined surfaces are superior to moderately rough and rough surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease.

Staged extractions and implant placement in a periodontally compromised patient: A clinical report

Staging the extraction of selected teeth in a periodontally compromised patient during complete mouth rehabilitation has advantages, including avoiding a transitional complete denture, keeping the patient with a fixed prosthesis throughout the treatment without the need to immediately load the implants, maintaining the interdental papillae, and providing comfort for the patient. The need for a multistep extended treatment and additional cost are the main disadvantage of this approach. This clinical report describes the clinical steps and follow-up of a staging approach and implant placement in a periodontally compromised patient with excessive gingival display to achieve a good functional and esthetic result.

Periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant treatment

Periodontal disease is considered a risk factor in dental implant treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant therapy. A total of 169 patients visiting Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology at Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital were targeted. The following intraoral parameters were measured in each patient: Community Periodontal Index (CPI) score, probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Prevalence of patients with periodontal pockets was high: 38% and 28% of patients had a CPI score of code 3 and 4, respectively. Prevalence of teeth with one or more sites with PPD≥4mm was 27%. Moreover, clinical signs suggestive of periodontitis (PPD, CAL≥4mm) were found in 10-15% of tooth sites. Prevalence rates at sites with severe periodontal breakdown (PPD, CAL≥7mm) were 2-5%. These results further emphasize the importance of thorough periodontal assessment in patients prior to dental implant treatment.

Smoking, diabetes mellitus, periodontitis, and supportive periodontal treatment as factors associated with dental implant survival: a long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed for up to 10 years

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the factors associated with long-term implant survival in a large cohort of patients in regular follow-up until data collection.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 475 patients who were referred to a private clinic limited to Periodontics and Implantology between November 1995 and July 2006. Data were collected from patient files with regards to smoking habits, periodontal condition, diabetes mellitus, implant survival, and time when implant failure occurred. Patients were divided into those who participated in a supportive periodontal program in the clinic and those who only attended the annual free-of-charge implant examination.

RESULTS

A total of 1626 implants were placed with a follow-up ranging from 1 to 114 months (average 30.82 +/- 28.26 months). Overall, 77 (4.7%) implants were lost in 58 (12.2%) patients after a mean period of 24.71 +/- 25.84 months. More than one-half of the patients (246; 51.7%) participated in a structured supportive periodontal program in the clinic, and 229 (48.3%) only attended to the annual free-of-charge implant examination. Smoking and attendance in a regular supportive periodontal program were statistically associated with implant survival. Patients with (treated) moderate-to-advanced chronic periodontal disease demonstrated higher implant failure rates but, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Diabetes mellitus was not related to implant survival in this patient cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking and attendance in a regular supportive periodontal program were found to be strongly related to implant survival. Special attention should be given to continuous periodontal supportive programs to implant patients.

Risk of implant failure and marginal bone loss in subjects with a history of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A number of studies have suggested that implant failure and associated bone loss is greater in subjects with a history of periodontitis.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the risk for marginal bone loss around implants and implant failure in subjects with a history of periodontitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects in studies with a minimum 3-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

DATA SOURCES

The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases and relevant journals were searched up to July 1, 2008, with restriction to English language.

REVIEW METHODS

Prospective and retrospective longitudinal observational clinical studies comparing periodontal/peri-implant variables among subjects with periodontitis and subjects who were periodontally healthy were included. Screening of studies, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Clarification of missing and unclear information was not sought. Outcome measures were: implant survival/failure, peri-implant parameters, changes in radiographic marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, and gingival index.

RESULTS

Seventeen potential studies were identified and six studies were accepted comparing patients with periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients treated with implants. Five studies were eligible for meta-analysis of implant survival and four studies were eligible for meta-analysis of bone loss around implants. The odds ratio for implant survival was significantly in favor of periodontally healthy patients (3.02, 95% confidence intervals 1.12-8.15). A random effects model showed more marginal bone loss in periodontitis subjects compared with periodontally healthy subjects (standard mean difference 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.14-1.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the heterogenous studies available, a moderate level of evidence indicates that periodontitis subjects were at significantly higher risk for implant failure and greater marginal bone loss as compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Prospective observational studies with subject-based designs are recommended.

Should our focus on inflammation change the way we practice?

Some scientists say, "Forget about bacteria; treat, or even better yet, prevent inflammation." We understand that periodontal diseases originate as bacterial assaults, but some two-thirds of the destruction comes from the inflammatory response to the bacterial invasion. There is growing evidence that inflammation can be transferred from the oral cavity to other parts of the body (and vice versa), explaining the possible association between periodontitis and other chronic inflammatory conditions. As a clinician, I find this intellectually interesting, but when I ask myself whether or not this shift from an infection model to an inflammation model changes the way I treat my patients, the answer is, "not really." But should it? Have I been so busy in my daily practice that I missed something important? Although I may not understand inflammation on the molecular level, I do know when my patients have inflammation, and when I do what I have been trained to do as a diagnostician and a clinician to eliminate it, most of my patients end up with a good clinical outcome. My job as a clinician is to translate what is going on in research and incorporate it into my practice to provide the best possible patient care. What I offer you in this commentary are the results of my journey to discover how or if our new emphasis on inflammation should affect how I care for my patients. My conclusion at this time is that I should err on the side of aggressive control of periodontal inflammation, since, until proven otherwise, the consequences of undertreatment could be more than the loss of a few teeth. It is your job to decide how this information influences the treatment of your patients.

A comprehensive and critical review of dental implant prognosis in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients

OBJECTIVES

The outcome of implant treatment in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients has not been completely clarified. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform, applying a systematic methodology, a comprehensive and critical review of the prospective studies published in English up to and including August 2006, regarding the short-term (<5 years) and long-term (>or=5 years) prognosis of osseointegrated implants placed in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using The National Library Of Medicine and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases, a literature search for articles published up to and including August 2006 was performed. At the first phase of selection the titles and abstracts and at the second phase full papers were screened independently and in duplicate by the three reviewers (I. K. K., S. K., I. F.).

RESULTS

The search provided 2987 potentially relevant titles and abstracts. At the first phase of evaluation, 2956 publications were rejected based on title and abstract. At the second phase, the full text of the remaining 31 publications was retrieved for more detailed evaluation. Finally, 15 prospective studies were selected, including seven short-term and eight long-term studies. Because of considerable discrepancies among these studies, meta-analysis was not performed.

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences in both short-term and long-term implant survival exist between patients with a history of chronic periodontitis and periodontally healthy individuals. Patients with a history of chronic periodontitis may exhibit significantly greater long-term probing pocket depth, peri-implant marginal bone loss and incidence of peri-implantitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Even though the short-term implant prognosis for patients treated for aggressive periodontitis is acceptable, on a long-term basis the matter is open to question. Alterations in clinical parameters around implants and teeth in aggressive periodontitis patients may not follow the same pattern, in contrast to what has been reported for chronic periodontitis patients. However, as only three studies comprising patients treated for aggressive periodontitis were selected, more studies, specially designed, are required to evaluate implant prognosis in this subtype of periodontitis. As the selected publications exhibited considerable discrepancies, more studies, uniformly designed, preferably longitudinal, prospective and controlled, would be important.

Impact of supportive periodontal therapy and implant surface roughness on implant outcome in patients with a history of periodontitis

OBJECTIVE

This review searched for a relationship between susceptibility to periodontitis and peri-implantitis, with implant outcome as the primary outcome variable and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and implant surface roughness as confounding factors.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

It is based on a MEDLINE search up to June 2006. Only 16 fulfilled the selection criteria. The heterogeneity of the studies (e.g. periodontal status, SPT, prosthetic design, ...) rendered a meta-analysis impossible. The impact of a history of periodontitis on early implant loss was negligible. Only five papers reported sub-data for patients with different degrees of periodontitis. Four out of five papers indicate a higher incidence of late implant loss and/or marginal bone loss in patients with a history of periodontitis. This difference was most obvious for very rough implants (three papers), and/or when SPT was not organized (one paper). Other confounding factors were often neglected. Another 10 papers only reported the outcome of implants in patients with a history of periodontitis. In case of SPT and when avoiding roughened surfaces, late implant loss remained below 3%, and marginal bone loss remained low.

CONCLUSIONS

These results seem to indicate that periodontally compromised patients can be successfully treated with minimally/moderately rough implants, in the presence of SPT.

Combined Therapy in a Patient With Papillon-Lefèvre Syndrome: A 13-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Papillon-Lefèvre syndrome (PLS) is an autosomal recessive disease characterized by hyperkeratosis of the palms and soles combined with premature loss of the primary and permanent dentition. Several treatment regimens have been recommended in the literature; however, a definitive treatment protocol has not been established. This case report evaluates the success of combined therapy in managing a patient with PLS.

METHODS

A 6-year-old girl diagnosed with PLS presented with aggressive periodontal destruction of her primary and permanent dentitions. After extraction of periodontally affected teeth, the edentate region was rehabilitated with different temporary dentures until her skeletal growth was complete. At the same time, her orthodontic treatment was performed. The early loss of her incisors resulted in inadequate alveolar bone height and width for esthetic-advanced prosthetic rehabilitation. Alveolar bone augmentation was performed, and 6 months later, two intraosseous dental implants were placed into the central incisor zone.

RESULTS

After 13 years of treatment and follow-up, the patient had periodontally healthy permanent dentition. She had practiced meticulous oral hygiene, and the orthodontic treatment was successful and without incident. Alveolar ridge augmentation and placement of an intraosseous implant with guided bone regeneration were performed successfully.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report demonstrates that individually developed treatment protocols can provide long-term dental/periodontal success in patients with PLS. A multidisciplinary approach with advanced periodontal surgery, orthodontic and prosthetic treatment, and implant therapy may be an appropriate treatment modality for dental rehabilitation in patients with PLS.

Outcome of implant therapy in patients with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis

BACKGROUND

It is frequently debated whether implant treatment in individuals with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis is characterized by an increased incidence of implant loss and peri-implantitis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present systematic review was to assess whether individuals with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis have an increased risk of loss of suprastructures, loss of implants, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant marginal bone loss as compared with individuals with previous tooth loss due to reasons other than periodontitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Studies considered for inclusion were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) and relevant journals were hand searched. Moreover, reference lists of articles selected for full-text screening as well as previously published reviews relevant for the present systematic review were searched. The search was performed by one reviewer and was restricted to human studies published from January 1, 1980 to January 1, 2006. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Prospective and retrospective cohort studies with at least a 5-year follow-up comparing the outcome of implant treatment in individuals with periodontitis-associated and non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss, respectively, were included. The outcome measures were survival of suprastructures, survival of implants, occurrence of peri-implantitis, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. The 5- and 10-year time points were evaluated.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two of the authors. The authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies with a 5- and 10-year follow-up, respectively, were identified including a total of 33 patients with tooth loss due to periodontitis and 70 patients with non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss. There was no significant difference in the survival of the suprastructures after 5 years. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the survival of the implants after 5 and 10 years. However, there were significantly more patients affected by peri-implantitis in the group with periodontitis-associated tooth loss during the 10-year follow-up period, risk ratio (RR) 9 (95% CI 3.94-20.57). Moreover, significantly increased peri-implant marginal bone loss was observed in patients with periodontitis-associated tooth loss after 5 years, mean difference 0.5 mm (95% CI 0.06-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

The survival of the suprastructures and the implants was not significantly different in individuals with periodontitis-associated and non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss. However, significantly increased incidence of peri-implantitis and significantly increased peri-implant marginal bone loss were revealed in individuals with periodontitis-associated tooth loss. The small sample size and the methodological quality assessment of the two studies suggest that the results should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, further long-term studies focusing particularly on the outcome of implant treatment in young adults with aggressive periodontitis are needed before final conclusions can be drawn about the outcome of implant treatment in patients with a history of periodontitis.

Implant Recommendation as a Replacement Option After Tooth Loss for Periodontal Reasons

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the frequency of implant recommendation by general dental practitioners to patients who had extractions as a result of periodontal disease and factors that influenced their decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Dentists in each of 20 general dental practice centers in Kuwait were asked to document replacement options given to patients after all tooth extractions performed for periodontal reasons within a 30-day period. The association of demographic and medical/dental history variables with the decision to recommend an implant was statistically tested.

RESULTS

A total of 711 patients with a mean age +/- of 47.34 +/- 0.45 years (range 18-96) had 2202 teeth extracted for periodontal reasons during the study period. Only 21 implants for 12 patients were offered as a replacement option (1.7%). Factors significantly associated with a less likelihood of implant recommendation included older age, male gender, diabetes mellitus, inadequate compliance with regular periodontal maintenance visits, inadequate oral hygiene practices, and anterior tooth types (P < 0.05; chi test).

CONCLUSION

Dental implants were rarely recommended to patients losing their teeth for periodontal reasons by general dentists in Kuwait.

Early colonization of non-submerged dental implants in patients with a history of advanced aggressive periodontitis

The aim of the study was to evaluate the early colonization of non-submerged implants over a 6-month period in partially edentulous patients treated for advanced aggressive periodontal disease. In 22 patients treated for advanced aggressive periodontitis and in a supportive maintenance program for a period between 12 and 240 months at implant surgery, a total of 68 non-submerged dental implants were installed. Patients had a plaque score below 20%, and less than 20% of the pockets around the teeth were bleeding on probing (BOP). Using DNA-probes (micro-IDent), the presence and concentration of five periodontal pathogens (Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythensis (Tf) and Treponema denticola (Td)) were determined in the five deepest pockets of the rest dentition pre-operatively and after 6 months as well as five places around each implant 10 days, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months after surgery. In each patient, a test to determine the genotype interleukin-1 (IL-1) was performed (PST - micro-IDent). After 6 months, no difference in microbial composition as compared with baseline was found around the teeth in five patients, in 12 minute differences and in five patients important differences were observed. Ten days after surgery, three patients had a complete similar bacterial composition between teeth and implants. In 14 patients, the composition was fairly similar, while large differences in composition and concentration occurred in five patients. This microbiota around the implants remained almost unchanged over a 6-month period and did not hamper the clinical and radiographic osseointegration and did not lead to peri-implantitis, mucositis or initiation of bone destruction.

Implants in Patients Treated for Generalized Aggressive and Chronic Periodontitis: A 3-Year Prospective Longitudinal Study

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present prospective longitudinal study of periodontally diseased and periodontally healthy patients was a clinical, microbiological, and radiographic comparison of teeth and implants and an assessment of the implant success rate.

METHODS

Thirty-nine partially edentulous patients provided with a total of 150 implants were enrolled in the study. Oral rehabilitation was undertaken in 15 patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP), 12 patients treated for generalized chronic periodontitis (GCP), and 12 periodontally healthy patients. The examinations of the teeth and implants were carried out within the framework of a 3-month recall schedule over a 3-year period. At each session, clinical parameters for probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), attachment level (AL), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) were recorded, and the composition of the subgingival microflora determined by dark-field microscopy. In the periodontally diseased patients, Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans (A.a.), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.g.), and Prevotella intermedia (P.i.) were detected at teeth and implants by DNA analysis in the first and third years after insertion of the superstructure. Intraoral radiographs of the teeth and implants were taken at baseline, immediately after insertion of the superstructure, and then 1 and 3 years later.

RESULTS

The GI and PI at implants and teeth remained below 0.25 and 0.6, respectively, in all patient groups throughout the study period. At the implants and teeth, a slight increase in PD and a continuous attachment loss was recorded in the GAgP patients. The attachment loss was greater at the implants than at the teeth in all groups. The morphological distribution of the microorganisms revealed virtually healthy conditions in all groups. A.a. was detected in two GAgP patients, whereas P.g. and P.i. were found more frequently both in the GAgP and in the GCP patients. Radiographically detected bone loss was higher after 3 years at implants and teeth in the GAgP patients than in the other two groups. The implant success rates recorded were 100% in the periodontally healthy and GCP patients, and 95.7% in the maxilla and 100% in the mandible of the GAgP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that oral rehabilitation can be performed with implants in patients treated for generalized aggressive and chronic periodontitis. However, slight attachment loss and bone loss were registered at the implants and teeth in the patients with aggressive periodontitis.

Clinical Consequences of IL-1 Genotype on Early Implant Failures in Patients under Periodontal Maintenance

BACKGROUND

Implant failure and biologic complications such as periimplantitis are not completely avoidable. Are there any genetic and microbiologic parameters that could be used to identify patients at risk for implant failure, preferably prior to treatment? This would result in improvement of the diagnostics, treatment decision, and risk assessment.

PURPOSE

The aims of this retrospective study were to describe (1) the absolute failure rate of Brånemark System implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Göteborg, Sweden) consecutively installed over a 10-year period in partially edentulous patients treated for periodontal disease prior to implant treatment and under regular professional maintenance, (2) the rate of interleukin-1 (IL-1) polymorphism in those patients who experienced at least one implant failure during the first year of function, and (3) the prevalence of periodontal pathogens in dental and periimplant sites with and without signs of inflammation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Of 766 patients, 81 encountered at least one implant failure; 22 patients were clinically examined and were tested genetically for IL-1 genotypes. The presence of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Prevotella nigrescens was analyzed.

RESULTS

The absolute implant survival rate for the whole population was 95.32%; 10.57% of the patients encountered an implant loss. Implant loss in the examined group (n = 22) was 32 of 106 (30.1%); 10 (45%) of the 22 patients were smokers, and 6 (27%) of the 22 patients were IL-1 genotype positive. Patients positive for IL-1 genotype were not more prone to implant loss; however, a significant synergistic effect with smoking was demonstrated. Between patients who were IL-1 genotype positive and those who were IL-1 genotype negative, the differences in regard to bleeding on probing or periodontal pathogens did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

The overall implant failure rate in a population treated and maintained for periodontal disease is similar to that of healthy subjects. A synergistic effect found between smoking and a positive IL-1 genotype resulted in a significantly higher implant loss. This indicates that further research with a larger patient group should focus on multifactorial analysis for adequate risk assessment.

Implant Survival in Periodontally Compromised Patients

BACKGROUND

Relatively little is known on the long-term prognosis of implants inserted in partially edentulous, periodontally compromised patients.

METHODS

A total of 258 conventional implants, 57 two-stage and 201 one-stage implants, which were inserted in 32 and 108 patients, respectively, between June 1988 and June 2002 were followed with respect to their survival, as well as the periodontal parameters bone loss, probing depth, and bleeding on probing. All patients were periodontally compromised who had undergone periodontal surgery and were considered able to maintain a high standard of oral hygiene.

RESULTS

The 5-year survival rates were 97% and 94%, respectively, for the two- and the one-stage implants. The 10-year survival rate remained high at 97% for the two-stage implants, but had dropped to 78% for the one-stage implants. Smoking, short implant length, and insertion during the later period (1995-2002) were found to be associated with an increased failure rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Implants placed in patients with a history of periodontitis have a 5-year survival similar to that observed for implants installed in non-diseased persons. Although the 10-year survival of the one-stage implants was somewhat lower than has been observed for non-diseased patients, implant placement remains a good treatment alternative also for periodontally compromised patients.

Oral rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed partial dentures in periodontitis-susceptible subjects. A 5-year prospective study

BACKGROUND

Comparatively few studies with at least 5 years of follow-up are available that describe the use of implants in prosthetic rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients. Randomized, controlled clinical studies that evaluated the effect of different surface designs of screw-shaped implants on the outcome of treatment are also sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To determine, in a prospective randomized, controlled clinical trial, the outcome of restorative therapy in periodontitis-susceptible patients who, following basic periodontal therapy, had been restored with implants with either a machined- or a rough-surface topography.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-one subjects (mean age, 59.5 years), 20 males and 31 females who, following treatment of moderate-to-advanced chronic periodontitis, required implant therapy for prosthetic rehabilitation were recruited. Seventeen of the patients were current smokers. Following the active treatment, all subjects were included in an individually designed maintenance program. A total of 56 fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and a total of 149 screw-shaped, and self-tapping implants (Astra Tech implants) -- 83 in the maxilla and 66 in the mandible -- were installed in a two-stage procedure. Each patient received a minimum of two implants and by randomization every second implant that was installed had been designed with a machined surface and the remaining with a roughened Tioblast surface. Abutment connection was performed 3-6 months after implant installation. Clinical and radiographical examinations were performed following FPD connection and once a year during a 5-year follow-up period. The analysis of peri-implant bone-level alterations was performed on subject, FPD and implant levels.

RESULTS

Four patients and four FPDs were lost to the 5 years of monitoring. One implant (machined surface) did not properly integrate (early failure), and was removed at the time of abutment connection. Three implants were lost during function and a further eight implants could not be accounted for at the 5-year follow-up examination. The overall failure rate at 5 years was 5.9% (subject level), 5.3% (FPD level) and 2.7% (implant level). Radiographic signs of loss of osseointegration were not found at any of the implants during the 5-year observation period. During the first year in function there was on average 0.33 (SD, 0.61) mm loss of peri-implant marginal bone on the subject and FPD levels and 0.31 (0.81) mm on the implant level. During the subsequent 4 years, the peri-implant bone-level alterations were small. The calculated annual change in peri-implant bone level was -0.02 (0.15) on subject and FPD levels and -0.03 (0.20) on the implant level. Thus, the mean total bone-level change over the 5-year interval amounted to 0.41 mm on all three levels of analysis. In the interval between baseline and 5 years, the machined and the Tioblast implants lost on average 0.33 and 0.48 mm, respectively (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

The present randomized, controlled clinical trial that included partially edentulous periodontitis-susceptible subjects demonstrated that bone loss (i) during the first year of function as well as annually thereafter was small and (ii) did not vary between implants with machined- or rough-surface designs.

Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System

AIM

The aim of this 10-year study was to compare the failure, success and complication rates between patients having lost their teeth due to periodontitis or other reasons.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-three patients who received 112 hollow screw implants (HS) of the ITI Dental Implant System were divided into two groups: group A - eight patients with 21 implants having lost their teeth due to chronic periodontitis; group B - forty five patients with 91 implants without a history of periodontitis. One and 10 years after surgical placement, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. The incidences of peri-implantitis were noticed over the 10 years of regular supportive periodontal therapy.

RESULTS

Success criteria at 10 years were set at: pocket probing depth (PPD) <or=5 mm, bleeding on probing (BoP-, bone loss <0.2 mm annually. The survival rate for the group with a past history of chronic periodontitis (group A) was 90.5%, while for the group with no past history of periodontitis (group B) it was 96.5%. Group A had a significantly higher incidence of peri-implantitis than group B (28.6% vs. 5.8%). With the success criteria set, 52.4% in group A and 79.1% of the implants in group B were successful. With a threshold set at PPD <or=6 mm, BoP- and bone loss <0.2 mm annually, the success rates were elevated to 62% and 81.3% for groups A and B, respectively. Relying purely on clinical parameters of PPD <or=5 mm and BoP-, the success rates were at 71.4% and 94.5%, and with a threshold set at PPD <or=6 mm and BoP-, these proportions were elevated to 81% and 96.7% for groups A and B, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with implants replacing teeth lost due to chronic periodontitis demonstrated lower survival rates and more biological complications than patients with implants replacing teeth lost due to reasons other than periodontitis during a 10-year maintenance period. Furthermore, setting of thresholds for success criteria is crucial to the reporting of success rates.

Outcome of implant therapy in relation to experienced loss of periodontal bone support: a retrospective 5- year study

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to analyse bone level alterations over a 5-year period at implants in the maxillary posterior segments in patients with varying experience of periodontal bone loss in the natural dentition before implant placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

97 partially dentate patients with a total of 346 Brånemark oral implants in the maxillary posterior segments were included. By assessing the degree of radiographic marginal bone loss in the remaining natural dentition at time of the implant therapy, an age-related bone loss score (ArB-score) was calculated for description of the patient's experience of periodontal destruction. The two end quartiles of the distribution of the subjects with regard to the ArB-score were defined as Non-Perio subjects and Perio subjects, respectively. The primary outcome variables were implant losses (implant failures) and radiographic peri-implant bone loss over the 5-year observation period.

RESULTS

A total of 18 implants were lost during the 5 years, resulting in an overall failure rate of 5.2%. The corresponding failure rate was 3.3% for the Non-Perio and 8.0% for the Perio patients. The peri-implant bone loss from the time of abutment connection to 5 years averaged 1.8 mm (SD 0.7). Of the patients, 34% showed a mean bone loss of > 2 mm and 39% of all implants had experienced a bone loss of 2 mm at the 5-year examination. The Non-Perio and Perio patients showed a mean bone loss of 1.7 mm (0.8) and 2.2 mm (0.8), respectively. Multiple regression analysis revealed a statistically significant relationship between the ArB-score and the peri-implant bone level change from abutment connection to 5 years (P < 0.05). In all, 64% of Perio patients had a mean peri-implant bone loss of > 2 mm from the time of abutment connection, compared to 24% for the Non-Perio patients (P < 0.01). The percentage of implants showing 2 mm of bone loss between abutment connection and 5 years was 62% and 44% in the Perio and Non-Perio groups, respectively (P = 0.055).

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that longitudinal bone loss around implants is correlated to previous experience of loss of periodontal bone support and that periodontitis susceptible subjects may show an increased implant failure rate.

Treatment Planning for Implants Versus Root Canal Therapy: A Contemporary Dilemma

The predictability of implant fixtures as a long-term solution for edentulous areas has improved to the point where they have become the standard of care in many situations, in lieu of fixed prostheses. At the same time, the success rate of endodontically treated teeth, and those requiring retreatment, is very high as well. The dilemma presented to the clinician in treatment planning is when to retreat a tooth or extract and place an endosseous root-form implant. Risk assessment for prognostic evaluation plays an important role in the decision-making process. The clinical and systemic factors affecting the longevity of a tooth need be considered as well as location, bone quality and amount, and the condition of the patient's other teeth. This article attempts to provide a meaningful algorithm that will provide a basis for an appropriate choice of therapy.

Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature

The use of oral implants in the rehabilitation of partially and fully edentulous patients is widely accepted even though failures do occur. The chance for implants to integrate can for example be jeopardised by the intra-oral presence of bacteria and concomitant inflammatory reactions. The longevity of osseointegrated implants can be compromised by occlusal overload and/or plaque-induced peri-implantitis, depending on the implant geometry and surface characteristics. Animal studies, cross-sectional and longitudinal observations in man, as well as association studies indicate that peri-implantitis is characterised by a microbiota comparable to that of periodontitis (high proportion of anaerobic Gram-negative rods, motile organisms and spirochetes), but this does not necessarily prove a causal relationship. However, in order to prevent such a bacterial shift, the following measures can be considered: periodontal health in the remaining dentition (to prevent bacterial translocation), the avoidance of deepened peri-implant pockets, and the use of a relatively smooth abutment and implant surface. Finally, periodontitis enhancing factors such as smoking and poor oral hygiene also increase the risk for peri-implantitis. Whether the susceptibility for periodontitis is related to that for peri-implantitis may vary according to the implant type and especially its surface topography.

Peri-implant health around screw-shaped c.p. titanium machined implants in partially edentulous patients with or without ongoing periodontitis

The relationship between periodontitis and peri-implantitis remains a matter of debate. The present study compared, "within" randomly chosen partially edentulous patients (n=84 subjects, 97 jaws), the marginal bone loss around teeth and implants during 5 years (range 3 to 11 years) following the first year of bone remodelling. The patients had all been rehabilitated by means of screw-shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system). During the 5 years observation interval, periodontal parameters (marginal bone and attachment loss, the latter for teeth only) were collected together with data on confounding factors (smoking, oral hygiene, tooth loss). Marginal bone loss was measured through long-cone intra-oral radiographs. The mean "interval" bone loss was significantly (P=0.0001) higher around teeth (0.48+/-0.95 mm) than around implants (0.09+/-0.28 mm). The corresponding data for the "worst" performing tooth (0.99+/-1.25 mm) and implant (0.19+/-0.32 mm) per subject showed the same tendency. Neither attachment nor bone loss around teeth correlated with marginal bone loss around implants. This study indicated that the rate of bone loss around screw-shape c.p. titanium implants with a machined surface (Brånemark system implants) was not influenced by the progression rate of periodontal destruction around the remaining teeth within the same jaw.

A meta-analytic, quantitative assessment of osseointegration establishment and evolution of submerged and non-submerged endosseous titanium oral implants

Two implant placement methods are used in oral implantology: submerged (S, two-stage surgical procedure) and non-submerged (NS, one-stage surgery). However, a quantitative assessment of their influence on implant osseointegration, summarising the whole present experience, is not directly possible, owing to the lack of normalisation of the published results. To overcome this difficulty, selection criteria have been applied to the latter in a process of a meta-analysis of specialised literature, in order to authorise a pooled treatment with an adequate statistical method. Survival life tables are established (up to 15 and 10 years respectively for S and NS implants placed in normal situations) for extended samples (13049 S and 5515 NS implants). Early (before loading) failure rates and 95% confidence level ranges of cumulative implant survival rates are shown. For both categories, the quality of the placement stage remains critical to ensure optimal osseointegration behaviour. Both categories match current survival requirements, but with a quite different behaviour over time. NS implants, while osseointegrating better initially, are subject to causes of osseointegration loss, which persist over a longer period of time. Implant design characteristics (including the type of surface) seem to be more relevant than the placement procedure for the implant's behaviour. This is in agreement with recent histological and preliminary clinical results, and should be confirmed by further studies.

Osseointegrated implants in patients treated for generalized chronic periodontitis and generalized aggressive periodontitis: 3- and 5-year results of a prospective long-term study

BACKGROUND

The successful use of osseointegrated implants in periodontally healthy patients has been documented in numerous longitudinal studies in recent years. However, the extent to which these positive results apply to periodontally diseased patients remains unclear. The aim of the present prospective longitudinal study of partially edentulous patients treated for generalized chronic periodontitis and generalized aggressive periodontitis was a clinical, microbiological, and radiographic comparison of teeth and implants and assessment of the implant success rate.

METHODS

Five partially edentulous patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP) and 5 treated for generalized chronic periodontitis (GCP) were enrolled in this study. The GAgP patients received 36 implants, and the GCP patients 12 implants. The teeth were examined 2 to 4 weeks before extraction of the non-retainable teeth (baseline), and 3 weeks after insertion of the final abutments (second examination). All further examinations were performed during a 3-month recall schedule over a 5-year period for the GAgP patients and over a 3-year period for the GCP patients. At each session clinical parameters were recorded at teeth and implants and the composition of the subgingival microflora was determined by dark-field microscopy and DNA analysis. Intraoral radiographs of the teeth and implants were taken for control purposes at baseline; after insertion of the superstructure; and 1, 3, and 5 years later.

RESULTS

The clinical findings indicated healthy periodontal and peri-implant conditions in both patient groups throughout the study. However, an increased probing depth and an attachment loss were recorded in the GAgP patients after the third year (P<0.001). The distribution of the microorganisms revealed no significant differences between the patient groups or between implants and teeth. Moderate bone loss at teeth and implants was registered in both groups. The success rates recorded were 100% in the GCP patients and 88.8% (maxilla: 85.7%; mandible: 93.3%) in the GAgP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The 3-year and 5-year follow-ups show that osseointegrated implants may be successful in oral rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis and generalized chronic periodontitis. However, as no significant differences were recorded between conditions at teeth and at implants, progression of the disease cannot be ruled out.

Periodontal diseases and dental implants in older adults

Older adults present special problems for the dentist trying to establish or reestablish esthetics. Periodontal diseases are of concern for this population since tooth loss from these widespread problems increases with age. In general, this loss occurs because of increased exposure time to pathogenic bacteria, not some change inherent in the body brought on by the aging process. The profession has begun to place more emphasis on systemic risk factors and their role in modifying periodontal inflammation. The current thinking is that bacteria are necessary to initiate and sustain periodontal diseases, but the clinical manifestation is dictated to a significant extent by systemic factors. Smoking, diabetes, and being positive for the interleukin-1 genotype predispose the patient to developing more severe disease. For those older adults who lose teeth, dental implants have emerged as reliable replacements, and concerns about placing these devices in patients who have lost teeth as a result of periodontitis appear to be largely unfounded.