Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

Gingival recessions caused by Herpes Simplex Virus in a patient with COVID ‐19 infection

Herpes Simplex Virus type 1 (HSV‐1) is a very common infection often localized in the mucocutaneous junction of the lip. Rarely, it could be detected also in periodontal tissues, associated with an elevated risk of periodontal disease progression and gingival recessions. Recently, HSV‐1 and numerous co‐infections have been reported in literature associated with the Coronavirus and subsequent COVID‐19 disease. This report illustrates a case of HSV‐1 in a patient with Covid‐19 infection, showing the presence of ulcers and vesicles on the gingival margin of maxillary teeth associated with soreness and pain. The histology highlighted the presence of intraepithelial cell ballooning, confirming the diagnosis of HSV‐1 infection.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: a systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple- unit implant restorations.

METHODS

Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1 year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using Pearson Chi-square test (p≤0.05).

RESULTS

In total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included. 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone-level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional esthetic evaluation (3.4%) and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%) followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%) and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (7 studies - 3.9%) was one of the least reported outcome measures CONCLUSIONS: Outcome measures and their assessment methods exhibited high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival and patient related outcomes remained infrequently reported.

Single and partial tooth replacement with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants: A systematic review of outcomes and outcome measures used in clinical trials in the last 10 years

AIM

To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on fixed single- and multiple-unit implant restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three independent electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane) were done to identify prospective and retrospective clinical studies published from January 2011 up to June 2021 with ≥20 patients and minimum 1-year follow-up period on technical and clinical outcomes of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and partial fixed dental prostheses (P-FDPs). An entire data extraction was performed to identify primarily the most reported outcome measures and later to define the choice of assessment methods of those outcome measures. The outcomes were analysed descriptively, and the strength of association was evaluated using the Pearson chi-square test (p ≤ .05).

RESULTS

In a total 531 studies, 368 on SCs (69.3%), 70 on P-FDPs (13.1%), and 93 on both restoration types (17.5%) were included; 56.3% of all studies did not clearly define a primary outcome. The most frequent primary outcome was marginal bone level (MBL) (55.2%) followed by implant survival (5.3%), professional aesthetic evaluation (3.4%), and technical complications (2.1%). Peri-implant indices were the most reported secondary outcome (55.1%), followed by implant survival (39.9%), MBL (36%), and implant success (26.4%). Prosthetic failure (seven studies [3.9%]) was one of the least reported outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures and their assessment methods showed high heterogeneity among studies. Primary outcomes were not often defined clearly, and the most frequently selected primary outcome was marginal bone loss. Prosthetic outcomes, implant survival, and patient-related outcomes were only infrequently reported.

Glucose variability and periodontal disease in type 1 diabetes: a cross-sectional study-The "PAROdontopatia e DIAbete" (PARODIA) project

AIMS

Periodontal disease (PD) is a chronic inflammation of periodontal tissue associated with infection from specific anaerobic pathogens contained in dental plaque. Both type 1 and type 2 diabetes are associated with an increased prevalence of PDs. A two-way relationship between diabetes and periodontitis has been proposed, with diabetes increasing the risk for periodontitis, and periodontal inflammation negatively affecting glycaemic control. To date, the relationship between PD and glucose variability in type 1 diabetes has not been evaluated. To investigate the prevalence of PD in patients with type 1 diabetes and its association with glycemic control and glucose variability.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, all enrolled patients were scheduled to attend both a diabetologic and a periodontal visit. HbA1c, glucose coefficient of variation (CV), loss of clinical attachment (CAL), and periodontal probing depth (PPD) were collected.

RESULTS

136 patients were included in the analysis. The prevalence of PD was 63%. A significant correlation was found between mean CAL and glucose CV (r = 0.31, p = 0.002), but not with HbA1c. Mean PPD was also associated with glucose CV (r = 0.27 and 0.044), but not with HbA1c. In a multiple linear regression model, with mean CAL as dependent variable, age, glucose CV, and smoking habit resulted significantly associated (r = 0.23, p = 0.013; r = 0.33, p = 0.001; r = 0.34, p < 0.001, respectively). Assuming mean PPD as dependent variable, multiple linear regression analysis showed a significant association with glucose CV and smoking habits only.

CONCLUSIONS

PD is associated with glucose variability in patients with type 1 diabetes also after adjusting for the main confounders.

Type 1 diabetes and periodontitis: prevalence and periodontal destruction-a systematic review

AIMS

Data about the association between periodontal disease or periodontitis (PD), diabetes and hyperglycemia have been reported mostly in patients with type 2 diabetes. Conversely, information about PD in type 1 diabetes (T1DM) is relatively scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis is therefore: (1) to assess the prevalence and severity of PD in patients affected by T1DM in comparison with the general population and (2) to verify the association between severity of PD and glycemic control in type 1 diabetics.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed on MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Trials and EMBASE, up to October 31, 2019. Estimates of prevalence of PD in T1DM were calculated together with Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (MH-OR) of the risk of PD associated with T1DM; weighed mean difference in CAL between T1DM and control and weighed mean difference in CAL in patients with T1DM and unsatisfactory glycemic control as compared with those in good glycemic control were also evaluated..

RESULTS

The prevalence of PD in type 1 diabetes was 18.5 [8.0; 37.1] %; the MH-OR for PD is 2.51 (1.32;4.76) in T1DM patients versus general population (p = 0.005). The weighed mean difference in CAL depth between T1DM patients and controls is 0.506 [0.181; 0.832] mm (p < 0.005), and in T1DM patients with good glycemic control CAL depth is - 0.71 [- 1.00; - 0.42] mm less deep than in subjects with HbA1c > 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

The present data confirm that T1DM is a relevant risk factor for the development of PD. The proportion of patients affected by PD is more than doubled in subjects with T1DM in comparison with non-diabetic individual, and among patients with T1DM, PD seems to be more severe and the differences appear very wide between subjects in optimal and suboptimal glycemic control.