Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

As utilisation of dental implants continues to rise, so does the incidence of biological complications. When peri-implantitis has already caused extensive bone resorption, the dentist faces the dilemma of which therapy is the most appropriate to maintain the implant. Since non-surgical approaches of peri-implantitis have shown limited effectiveness, the present paper describes different surgical treatment modalities, underlining their indications and limitations. The primary goal in the management of peri-implantitis is to decontaminate the surface of the infected implant and to eliminate deep peri-implant pockets. For this purpose, access flap debridement, with or without resective procedures, has shown to be effective in a large number of cases. These surgical treatments, however, may be linked to post-operative recession of the mucosal margin. In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and to achieve re-osseointegration.

Long-term treatment outcomes of single maxillary buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences: A 10-year prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the 10-year clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of shallow isolated peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscences (PSTD) at single tissue level dental implants. METHODS: The baseline population included 16 patients (16 implants) displaying an isolated peri-implant maxillary buccal soft-tissue dehiscence. The recipient bed was prepared with a minimally-invasive split-thickness flap limited to the buccal aspect to stabilize the tuberosity connective tissue graft (CTG) onto the periosteum. At the end of treatment, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive peri-implant care (SPC) program. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated on photographs by three clinicians using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: SPC during the 10-years proceeded uneventfully in all patients. A total of 12 patients completed the 10-year examination, as 3 patients dropped-out and 1 implant was lost. Complete PSTD coverage was obtained at 7 implant sites (i.e., 58%) while the mean PSTD coverage amounted to 89.6% ± 17.1% without statistically significant differences between 1 and 10 years (p > 0.05). Stable peri-implant parameters (i.e., PD and BoP) and full-mouth scores (i.e., FMPS, FMBS) were recorded throughout the observation period (p > 0.05). The aesthetic improvements obtained in the short-term were maintained up to 10 years. CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the proposed surgical technique is a simple and reliable treatment option for the treatment of single maxillary buccal PSTDs in selected cases with positive results up to 10 years in patients under regular SPC (NCT04983758-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment).

Longitudinal assessment of peri-implant diseases in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: To longitudinally assess the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in a cohort of patients with and without history of periodontitis over a 20-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients who attended a specialist private periodontal practice were evaluated prospectively 10 and 20 years after prosthesis delivery. Following successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients (172 implants) were enrolled on an individualised supportive periodontal care programme. Clinical and radiographic parameters were collected to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. Prevalence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis was calculated based on the case definition set out in 2018. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess potential risk or protective factors. RESULTS: The analysis was performed on 22 periodontally healthy and 62 periodontally compromised patients rehabilitated with 39 and 130 implants, respectively. The 10-year prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 21.4%, 67.9% and 10.6%, respectively, whereas the 20-year prevalence was 29.8%, 47.6% and 33.3%, respectively. Non-compliant periodontally compromised patients showed a statistically significantly increased risk at 20 years of both peri-implant mucositis (odds ratio 11.1; 95% confidence interval 1.8-68.6) and peri-implantitis (bone loss and probing depth) (odds ratio 14.3; 95% confidence interval 1.8-32.9). High full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores were associated with higher odds of both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant diseases were prevalent in patients rehabilitated with dental implants and followed up for a period of 20 years. History of periodontal disease and a lack of compliance with a tailored supportive periodontal care programme were identified as risk factors for peri-implant diseases.

The importance of soft tissue condition in bone regenerative procedures to ensure long-term peri-implant health.

Bone regenerative procedures have been widely proved to be a reliable treatment option to re-create the ideal pre-implant clinical conditions. Nevertheless, these techniques are not free from post-operative complications which might result in implant failure. Consequently, as demonstrated by the increasing recently published evidence, a careful pre- and intra-operative flap evaluation to ensure an ideal and hermetic tension-free wound closure is of paramount importance to successfully treat bony defects. In this respect, several surgical interventions mainly aimed to increase the amount of keratinized mucosa either to allow an optimal healing after a reconstructive procedure or to establish an optimal peri-implant soft tissue seal have been proposed. The present review summarizes the level of evidence on the surgical clinical aspects which have an impact on the soft tissue handling associated with bone reconstructive procedures and on the importance of soft tissue conditions to enhance and maintain peri-implant health in the long-term.

Reliability assessment of the 2018 classification case definitions of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy in the assignment of the case definitions of peri-implant health and diseases according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. METHODS: Ten undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis. RESULTS: The Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.

Peri-implantitis as the consequence of errors in implant therapy.

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. It is a highly prevalent disease, as extensively estimated by large-population, cross-sectional studies. As peri-implant diseases represent opportunistic infections, it is reasonable to assume that nonideal conditions, local and/or general, may favor the progression of peri-implant inflammation. Some of these conditions could be a result of poor planning and/or inadequate execution of any step of the entire process treatment. This article describes the major possible factors in implant therapy that may lead to peri-implantitis. For some of these (ie, inappropriate patient selection, insufficient periodontal therapy, lack of diagnosis and management of peri-implant mucositis, erratic supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) there is a good level of evidence, whereas for others (ie, wrong implant placement, poor postoperative care, inadequate prosthetic reconstruction, lack of assessment and management of peri-implant soft-tissue deficiencies) there is little scientific evidence. More research is therefore needed to clearly identify the errors and/or complications possibly leading to peri-implantitis, particularly over the long term.

Minimal invasiveness in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis defects.

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, clinically characterized by increased peri-implant probing pocket depth and progressive loss of supporting bone. Consequently, to arrest further disease progression and to increase the chance to obtain re-osseointegration, surgical reconstructive procedures have been adopted. In particular, following a paradigm gathered from periodontal therapy, recent protocols have underlined the importance of a minimally invasive approach to optimize the outcomes of therapy while minimizing the risks of postoperative complications. The present review summarizes the level of evidence on the surgical reconstructive protocols focusing on the new approaches aiming to minimize surgical trauma and patients' postoperative discomfort, underlining the pros and cons of each treatment modality.

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study.

AIM: To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss.

Benchmark performance of anodized vs. sandblasted implant surfaces in an acute dehiscence type defect animal model.

OBJECTIVES: Crestal bone formation represents a crucial aspect of the esthetic and biological success of dental implants. This controlled preclinical study analyzed the effect of implant surface and implant geometry on de novo crestal bone formation and osseointegration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Histological and histomorphometrical analysis was performed to compare three implant groups, that is, (1) a novel, commercially available, gradient anodized implant, (2) a custom-made geometric replica of implant "1," displaying a superhydrophilic micro-rough large-grit sandblasted and acid-etched surface, and (3) a commercially available implant, having the same surface as "2" but a different implant geometry. The study applied a standardized buccal acute-type dehiscence model in minipigs with observation periods of 2 and 8 weeks of healing. RESULTS: The amount of newly formed crestal bone (BATA) around control groups (2) and (3) was significantly increased when compared to the test group (1) at the 8 weeks of healing time point. Similar results were obtained for all parameters related to osseointegration and direct bone apposition, to the implant surface (dBIC, VBC, and fBIC), demonstrating superior osseointegration of the moderately rough, compared to the gradient anodized functionalization. After 2 weeks, the osseointegration (nBIC) was found to be influenced by implant geometry with group (3) outperforming groups (1) and (2) on this parameter. At 8 weeks, nBIC was significantly higher for groups (2) and (3) compared to (1). CONCLUSIONS: The extent (BATA) of de novo crestal bone formation in the acute-type dehiscence defects was primarily influenced by implant surface characteristics and their ability to promote osseointegration and direct bone apposition. Osseointegration (nBIC) of the apical part was found to be influenced by a combination of surface characteristics and implant geometry. For early healing, implant geometry may have a more pronounced effect on facilitating osseointegration, relative to the specific surface characteristics.

Occurrence, associated factors and soft tissue reconstructive therapy for buccal soft tissue dehiscence at dental implants: Consensus report of group 3 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS: Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION: Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations.

Reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis infrabony defects of various configurations: 5-year survival and success.

AIM: To present the 5 years outcomes of a reconstructive surgical protocol for peri-implantitis defects with different morphologies, by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBMC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The original population of this case series consisted of 75 patients with one crater-like defect and probing depth (PD) ≥6 mm. After flap elevation, defects were assigned to one characteristic class and treated by means of DBBMC. Following healing, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal/peri-implant (SPT) program. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients reached the 5 years examination, as 11 patients were lost to follow-up and 13 implants were removed. Overall treatment success was registered in 29 patients (45.3%). Mean PD and BOP significantly decreased at one year and remained stable for the rest of observation period. No correlation was found between implant survival rate and defect configuration (p = 0.213). Patients, who did not fully adhere to the SPT, experienced more complications and implant loss than those who regularly attended recall appointments (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed reconstructive treatment resulted in a high 5 years implant survival rate in patients who fully adhered to SPT. The resolution of the peri-implantitis defect does not seem significantly associated with the defect configuration at the time of treatment.

Soft tissue management at implants: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions. RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.

Flapless application of enamel matrix derivative in periodontal retreatment: A multicentre randomized feasibility trial.

AIM: To investigate the potential benefit of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) as adjunct to re-instrumentation of residual pockets persisting after steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 44 adult patients participated in a multicentre feasibility randomized clinical trial with split-mouth design. They had presented at re-evaluation after initial non-surgical periodontal therapy (steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy) for generalized periodontitis with at least 2 teeth with residual probing pocket depths (PPD) ≥5 and ≤8 mm, with bleeding on probing (BOP). Two teeth with similar PPD were randomized to receive re-instrumentation either with (test) or without (control) adjunctive flapless administration of EMD. Differences in the changes of PPD and BOP from baseline to 6 and 12 months were analysed, and the frequencies of pocket closure (PPD ≤4 mm and no BOP) compared. RESULTS: For the primary outcome "change of mean PPD after 6 months," a significant additional benefit of 0.79 ± 1.3 mm (p < .0001) could be observed for the test group. At 12 months, this difference could be maintained (0.85 ± 1.1 mm; p < .0001). The frequency of pocket closure in the test group was 69% at 6 and 80% at 12 months and significantly higher than in the control group with 34% and 42%, respectively (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present feasibility study indicate a benefit of adjunctive EMD during non-surgical retreatment (step 3 of periodontal therapy) of residual deep pockets.

Implant survival after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis lesions by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen: 10-year results from a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the 10-year outcomes of a regenerative surgical treatment of single peri-implantitis intrabony defects, by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBMC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The original population consisted of 26 patients with one crater-like defect, around either SLA or TPS dental implants, with a probing depth ≥6 mm and no implant mobility. After debridement and surface decontamination, the defects were filled with DBBMC. Subsequently, patients were placed in an individualized supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy (SPT) program. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (eight SLA and six TPS) reached the 10-year examination. The overall implant survival rate was 67%, 80% for the SLA, and 55% for the TPS implants. During SPT, five patients were lost to follow-up, eight patients needed additional antibiotic and/or surgical therapy, and seven patients had the implant removed. PD was reduced from 6.6 ± 1.3 to 3.2 ± 0.7 mm in SLA and from 7.2 ± 1.5 to 3.4 ± 0.6 mm in TPS. BOP decreased from 75.0 ± 31.2% to 7.5 ± 12.1% (SLA) and from 90.0 ± 12.9% to 30.0 ± 19.7% (TPS). Treatment success was found in 5 of the 12 SLA (42%) and in 4 of the 14 TPS (29%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed reconstructive treatment, followed by SPT, was able to maintain in function the majority of SLA implants, although the overall treatment success was limited and many of TPS implants were removed. Therefore, the decision to treat implants affected by peri-implantitis should be based on several factors, including surface characteristics.

Local risk indicators - Consensus report of working group 2.

In implant dentistry, plaque control and oral hygiene practices are essential to limit the risk of complication and failure in the long term. All conditions around an implant in function that influence the load and pathogenicity of the microbiota are considered local risk indicators. They concern the prosthetic suprastructure design and the possibility for the patient to easily access each implant for plaque removal. Use of cemented prostheses should be limited to avoid excess cement acting as a foreign body and leading to peri-implant disease. The crown margins should be supramucosal, and the connection should be precise to avoid a gap between the implant and the suprastructure. Every implant system is characterised by a specific design, surface texture and connection type. These features may influence peri-implantitis development and progression, and the clinician should consider the risk of infection when selecting an implant. The soft-tissue conditions around the implant, the width of keratinised mucosa, and the phenotype and thickness of the mucosa are also considered major risk indicators, as the presence of any mucosal defect around an implant can increase plaque accumulation and result in tissue inflammation. The pathogenicity of the microbiota around an implant is primarily dependent on pocket depth. Deep pockets around implants should be avoided and, if present, closely monitored and/or reduced. Proximity to natural teeth presenting endodontic and/or periodontal lesions may result in implant contamination, but the influence of the type of edentulism on perio-pathogen presence is still unclear. These local conditions around an implant have a clear influence on peri-implant diseases development and progression, but there is still only limited evidence regarding their role as true risk indicators.

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.

Treatment of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around single implant: 5-year results from a prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to report the 5-year outcomes of a coverage procedure of shallow maxillary soft tissue dehiscences, around single tissue-level implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The original population consisted of 16 patients presenting a single maxillary buccal implant soft tissue recession. A connective tissue graft, taken from the maxillary tuberosity, was inserted underneath a split-thickness envelope flap. After treatment, patients received individually tailored supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow-up, while one implant was removed due to peri-implantitis, before the final examination. At 5 years, complete implant soft tissue coverage was depicted in 8 out of 13 cases (62%). Mean soft tissue dehiscence coverage was 86%. Patients' esthetic evaluation showed the persistency of high VAS scores. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around single implant, followed by regular supportive therapy, resulted in good esthetic and functional results in the majority of patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limits of this study, the positive results suggest that the proposed technique may be a reliable option in selected cases.

Periodontal Regeneration and Orthodontic Treatment of Severely Periodontally Compromised Teeth: 10-Year Results of a Prospective Study.

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term clinical conditions of periodontally compromised teeth treated by means of orthodontics after periodontal regeneration (GTR). Forty-eight patients affected by severe periodontitis who presented at least one nonmolar, malpositioned tooth with a pocket depth (PD) ≥ 7 mm, were consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice. The treatment consisted of the following steps: infection control, provisional splinting, GTR, orthodontic treatment, final splinting, and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Thirty-six patients completed the 10-year study, as 12 were lost to follow-up. The total number of sites with PD ≥ 7 mm decreased from 25.4 ± 16.7 to 1.8 ± 2.1. PD of the teeth involved in the orthoperio treatment significantly decreased from 6.3 ± 1.5 mm to 3.1 ± 0.6 mm. One test tooth had to be extracted before the final examination due to root fracture, while two teeth lost vitality and received a root canal treatment. Eight episodes of recurrence, which required additional treatment, occurred during the 10 years of follow-up. The results of this study suggest that if a periodontal infection is under control, the orthodontic treatment does not reduce the long-term benefits of periodontal regeneration, even where the disease has caused massive tissue destruction.

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Risks and biologic complications associated with implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address topics related to biologic risks and complications associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) diagnosis of peri-implantitis, (b) complications associated with implants in augmented sites, (c) outcomes following treatment of peri-implantitis, and (d) implant therapy in geriatric patients and/or patients with systemic diseases were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion in Group 4. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS: Bleeding on probing (BOP) alone is insufficient for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis. The positive predictive value of BOP alone for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis varies and is dependent on the prevalence of peri-implantitis within the population. For patients with implants in augmented sites, the prevalence of peri-implantitis and implant loss is low over the medium to long term. Peri-implantitis treatment protocols which include individualized supportive care result in high survival of implants after 5 years with about three-quarters of implants still present. Advanced age alone is not a contraindication for implant therapy. Implant placement in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive therapy is contraindicated due to the associated high risk for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of peri-implantitis requires the presence of BOP as well as progressive bone loss. Prevalence of peri-implantitis for implants in augmented sites is low. Peri-implantitis treatment should be followed by individualized supportive care. Implant therapy for geriatric patients is not contraindicated; however, comorbidities and autonomy should be considered.

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals. RESULTS: The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively. CONCLUSION: Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients.