Reosseointegration after the surgical treatment of induced peri-implantitis: systematic review on current evidence and translation from the animal to the human model

Influence of Removing or Leaving the Prosthesis after Regenerative Surgery in Peri-Implant Defects: Retrospective Study: 32 Clinical Cases with 2 to 8 Years of Follow-Up

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the influence of removing or not removing a prosthesis after regenerative surgery on peri-implant defects.

METHODS

Two different groups were compared (Group 1: removing the prosthesis; Group 2: maintaining the prosthesis), analyzing radiographic bone filling (n = 32 implants) after regenerative treatment in periapical radiographs. The peri-implant defects were measured before and after regenerative treatment using Bio-Oss^® (Geistlich Pharma, Wohhusen, Switzerland) and a reabsorbable collagen membrane (Jason^®, Botis, Berlin, Germany), the healing period was two years after peri-implant regenerative surgery. Statistical analysis was performed, and a Chi square test was carried out. To determine the groups that made the difference, corrected standardized Haberman residuals were used, and previously a normality test had been applied; therefore, an ANOVA or Mann-Whitney U test was used for the crossover with the non-normal variables in Group 1 and Group 2.

RESULTS

The results obtained suggest that a regenerative procedure with xenograft, resorbable membrane, and detoxifying the implant surface with hydrogen peroxide form a reliable technique to achieve medium-term results, obtaining an average bone gain at a radiographic level of 2.84 mm (±1.78 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was not removed after peri-implant bone regenerative therapy and 2.18 mm (±1.41 mm) in patients whose prosthesis was removed during the healing period.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no statistically significant differences in the response to treatment when removing or keeping the prosthesis after regenerative surgery in peri-implant defects.

The Prevention of Implant Surface Alterations in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Comparison of Three Different Mechanical and Physical Treatments

The surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is currently based on the removal of biofilms from the implant surface by primary means of mechanical and physical treatments. However, such approaches often determine some alterations of the implant surface with detrimental effects on re-osseointegration. This study aims to evaluate the effects of four different mechanical and physical treatments on titanium samples with moderately rough surface. Air powder abrasion (AP) with glycine powder, a titanium brush (TB) and a diode laser at 3 W (L3) and 4 W (L4) were tested. Surface morphology, roughness and chemical composition were then assessed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), white light interferometer and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), respectively. The microscopic analysis revealed significant alterations in surface morphology on TB samples, while AP and L3 had only a minor or null impact. L4 samples revealed signs of overheating due to the excessive power. Nevertheless, the overall roughness of the samples was not significantly altered in terms of roughness parameters. Similarly, surface chemical composition was not significantly affected by the treatments. Among the treatments tested in this study, air powder abrasion with glycine powder and 3 W diode laser had the lowest impact on surface physicochemical properties.