Factors influencing outcomes of surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A secondary analysis of 1-year results from a randomized clinical study.

AIM: To identify predictors of treatment outcomes following surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing access flap with or without bone replacement graft. Outcomes at 12 months were probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), soft-tissue recession (REC) and marginal bone level (MBL) change. Multilevel regression analyses were used to identify predictors. We also built an explanatory model for residual signs of inflammation. RESULTS: Baseline PPD was the most relevant predictor, showing positive associations with final PPD, REC and MBL gain, and negative association with probability of pocket closure. Smokers presented higher residual PPD. Absence of keratinized mucosa at baseline increased the probability of BOP but was otherwise not indicative of outcomes. Plaque at 6 weeks was detrimental in terms of residual PPD and BOP. Treatment allocation had an effect on REC. Final BOP was explained by residual PPD ≥6 mm and plaque at more than two sites. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PPD was the most relevant predictor of the outcomes of surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Pocket closure should be a primary goal of treatment. Bone replacement grafts may be indicated in aesthetically demanding cases to reduce soft-tissue recession. The importance of smoking cessation and patient-performed plaque control is also underlined.

Onset of periodontitis - a registry-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The present retrospective registry-based cohort study aimed to identify parameters associated with the onset of periodontitis in young adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 345 Swedish subjects were clinically examined at age 19 years (as part of an epidemiological survey) and then followed up to 31 years through the Swedish Quality Registry for Caries and Periodontal diseases (SKaPa). The registry data including periodontal parameters were obtained for the period 2010-2018 (23-31 years). Logistic regression and survival models were used to identify risk factors for periodontitis (PPD ≥6 mm at ≥2 teeth). RESULTS: The incidence of periodontitis during the 12-year observation period was 9.8%. Cigarette smoking (modified pack-years; HR 2.35, 95%CI 1.34-4.13) and increased probing pocket depth (number of sites with PPD 4-5 mm; HR 1.04, 95%CI 1.01-1.07) at 19 years were risk factors for periodontitis in subsequent young adulthood. No statistically significant association was identified for gender, snuff use, plaque and marginal bleeding scores. CONCLUSION: Cigarette smoking and increased probing pocket depth (≥4 mm) in late adolescence (19 years) were relevant risk factors for periodontitis in young adulthood. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our study identified cigarette smoking and increased probing depth in late adolescence as relevant risk factors of periodontitis in young adulthood. Preventive programs should therefore consider both cigarette smoking and probing pocket depths in their risk assessment.

Prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to April 2021 were conducted to identify longitudinal clinical studies with ≥10 patients on either the prevention or management of peri-implant diseases. Outcome measures of this analysis were the choice of outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analytical methods. Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Data were extracted into evidence tables and outcomes were analysed in a descriptive manner. RESULTS: The analysis of the 159 selected studies revealed that probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding/suppuration on probing (BOP) were reported in 89% and 87% of all studies, respectively. Additional outcome measures included plaque scores (reported in 64% of studies), radiographic outcomes (49%), soft tissue dimensions (34%), and composite outcomes (26%). Adverse events (8%) and patient-reported outcomes (6%) were only rarely mentioned. A primary outcome measure was clearly defined only in 36% of studies. Data on PPD, radiographic outcomes, and soft tissue dimensions were primarily reported as mean values and rarely as frequency distributions. For radiographic outcomes and soft tissue dimensions, it was frequently unclear how clustered data were handled. CONCLUSIONS: PPD and BOP were routinely reported in studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, while composite outcomes, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes were only infrequently described.

Prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to April 2021 were conducted to identify longitudinal clinical studies with ≥10 patients on either the prevention or management of peri-implant diseases. Outcome measures of this analysis were the choice of outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analytical methods. Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Data were extracted into evidence tables and outcomes were analysed in a descriptive manner. RESULTS: The analysis of the 159 selected studies revealed that probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding/suppuration on probing (BOP) were reported in 89% and 87% of all studies, respectively. Additional outcome measures included plaque scores (reported in 64% of studies), radiographic outcomes (49%), soft tissue dimensions (34%), and composite outcomes (26%). Adverse events (8%) and patient-reported outcomes (6%) were only rarely mentioned. A primary outcome measure was clearly defined only in 36% of studies. Data on PPD, radiographic outcomes, and soft tissue dimensions were primarily reported as mean values and rarely as frequency distributions. For radiographic outcomes and soft tissue dimensions, it was frequently unclear how clustered data were handled. CONCLUSIONS: PPD and BOP were routinely reported in studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, while composite outcomes, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes were only infrequently described.

Scientific rationale for study: In 2012, recommendations on study design, key outcome measures, and reporting in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant diseases were presented. We aimed to evaluate how these recommendations were adapted and utilized in relevant studies published during the last decade. Principal findings: Recommendations on outcome measures and reporting in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were only partially followed. Practical implications: When evaluating the evidence on the prevention and management of peri-implant diseases, the clinician should be aware of the limitations in terms of choice of outcome measures and data reporting.

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Four mm-long versus longer implants in augmented bone in atrophic posterior jaws: 4-month post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether 4-mm long dental implants could be an alternative to augmentation with equine bone blocks and the placement of at least 10-mm long implants in atrophic posterior jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with atrophic posterior (premolar and molar areas) mandibles having 5 to 6 mm bone height above the mandibular canal and 40 patients with atrophic maxillae having 4 to 5 mm below the maxillary sinus, were randomised according to a parallel group design to receive one to three 4.0 mm-long implants or one to three implants, which were at least 10 mm long, in augmented bone at two centres. All implants had a diameter of 4.0 or 4.5 mm. Mandibles were vertically augmented with interpositional equine bone blocks and resorbable barriers. Implants were placed 4 months after interpositional grafting. Maxillary sinuses were augmented with particulated porcine bone via a lateral window covered with resorbable barriers, and implants were placed simultaneously. Implants were not submerged and were loaded after 4 months with provisional prostheses. Four months later, screw-retained reinforced acrylic restorations were delivered, and then replaced after 4 months by definitive screw-retained metal-composite prostheses. Patients were followed up to 4-months post-loading. Outcome measures included prosthesis and implant failures, any complication and peri-implant marginal bone level changes. RESULTS: No patient dropped out. In six augmented mandibles (30%), it was not possible to place implants which were at least 10.0-mm long, therefore shorter implants had to be placed instead. In particular, one mandible fractured and the patient did not want to go ahead with the treatment. One implant of the patient with the mandible fracture from the augmented group failed versus two 4.0 mm implants in two patients from the short implant group. In the maxillae, three short implants failed in two patients versus five long implants in three patients (two long implants and one short implant dropped into the maxillary sinus). Two prostheses on short implants (one mandibular and one maxillary) were placed at a later stage because of implant failures versus four prostheses (one mandibular and three maxillary) at augmented sites. In particular, three patients of the augmented group (one mandible and two maxillary) were not prosthetically rehabilitated. There were no statistically significant differences in implant failures (P (chi-square test) = 1.000; difference in proportion = 0; 95% Cl: -0.13 to 0.13 or prostheses failures (P (chi-square test) = 0.399; difference in proportion = 0.05; 95% Cl: -0.06 to 0.16). At mandibular sites, nine augmented patients were affected by complications versus one patient treated with short implants (P (chi-square test) = 0.003; difference in proportion = 0.40; 95% Cl: 0.16 to 0.64), with the difference being statistically significant. No significant differences were found for the maxillae: eight sinus lift patients versus three patients rehabilitated with maxillary short implants were affected by complications (P (chi-square test) = 0.077; difference in proportion = 0.25; 95% Cl: -0.02 to 0.52). Patients with mandibular short implants lost on average 0.40 mm of peri-implant bone at 4 months and patients with 10 mm or longer mandibular implants lost 0.52 mm. Patients with short maxillary implants lost on average 0.48 mm peri-implant bone at 4 months and patients with 10 mm or longer maxillary implants lost 0.50 mm. The difference was statistically significant in the mandibles (mean difference: -0.12 mm, 95% CI: -0.20 to -0.04, P (ANCOVA) = 0.006), but not in the maxillae (mean difference: -0.02 mm, 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.07, P (ANCOVA) = 0.711). CONCLUSIONS: Four months after loading 4.0 mm-long implants achieved similar results, if not better, than longer implants in augmented jaws, but were affected by fewer complications. Short implants might be a preferable choice to bone augmentation, especially in mandibles, since the treatment is less invasive, faster, cheaper, and associated with less morbidity; however, 5- to 10-year post-loading data is necessary before making reliable recommendations. Conflict-of-interest statement: Global-D (Brignais, France) partially supported this trial and donated the implants and prosthetic components; however, data property belonged to the authors and by no means did Global-D interfere with the conduct of the trial or the publication of the results.

Dental implants with internal versus external connections: 5-year post-loading results from a pragmatic multicenter randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate advantages and disadvantages of identical implants with internal or external connections. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients with any type of edentulism (single tooth, partial and total edentulism), requiring one implant-supported prosthesis were randomly allocated in two equal groups to receive either implants with an external connection (EC) or implants of the same type with an internal connection (IC) (EZ Plus, MegaGen Implant, Gyeongbuk, South Korea), at four centres. Due to slight differences in implant design and components, IC implants were platformswitched while EC were not. Patients were followed for 5 years after initial loading. Outcome measures were prosthesis/implant failures, any complication, marginal bone level changes and clinician preference, assessed by blinded outcome assessors. RESULTS: Sixty patients received 96 EC implants and 60 patients received 107 IC implants. Three patients dropped out with four EC implants and five patients with ten IC implants, but all remaining patients were followed up to 5-year post-loading. One prosthesis supported by EC implants and two by IC implants failed (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). One EC implant failed versus three IC implants in two patients (P = 0.615, difference = -0.02, 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04). Ten complications occurred in 10 EC patients versus nine complications in 9 IC patients (P = 1.000, difference = 0.01, 95% CI: -0.13 to 0.15). There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures and complications between the different connection types. Five years after loading, there were no statistically significant differences in marginal bone level estimates between the two groups (difference = 0.14 mm, 95% CI: -0.28 to 0.56, P (ancova) = 0.505) and both groups lost bone from implant placement in a statistically significant way: 1.13 mm for the EC implants and 1.21 mm for the IC implants. Two operators had no preference and two preferred IC implants. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations given by the difference in neck design and platform switching between EC and IC implants, 5-year post-loading data did not show any statistically significant differences between the two connection types, therefore clinicians could choose whichever they preferred.

Retrospective long-term evaluation of dental implants in totally and partially edentulous patients: part II: periimplant disease.

PURPOSE: This retrospective longitudinal study aims to assess long-term outcomes of osseointegrated dental implants placed in partially and totally edentulous patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who were willing to sign the informed consent and attend a check-up were included. The prevalence of periimplant disease was calculated. Cases were further divided into mucositis or periimplantitis. Uni- and multi-variate statistical analyses were conducted to determine the influence of various factors. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients who had received 342 implants were included. Mean follow-up was 13.19 ± 3.70 years. The prevalence of periimplant disease was 14.2% of the analyzed implants and 21% of patients. An additional 4.8% of patients reported a previous presence of periimplant disease without current disease. The prevalence of mucositis and periimplantitis was 11.2% and 1.7%, respectively, of analyzed implants. Factors with possible influence on the presence of periimplant disease were gender, alcohol consumption, chemotherapy and/or head and neck radiotherapy, history of periodontal disease, and years of function. CONCLUSION: In our sample, periimplant disease was not infrequent, being present in 1 of 5 patients at the final check-up.

Retrospective long-term evaluation of dental implants in totally and partially edentulous patients. Part I: survival and marginal bone loss.

PURPOSE: This retrospective longitudinal study aims to assess long-term outcomes of osseointegrated dental implants in partially and totally edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients willing to sign the informed consent and attend a check-up were included. Implant failures were recorded, and marginal bone level and bone loss were evaluated on intraoral radiographs. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were conducted to determine the influence of various factors. Complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: One hundred five patients who received 342 implants were included. Mean follow-up was 13.19 ± 3.70 years. 9.4% of implants were lost, and 78.1% of patients retained all implants placed. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.77 ± 1.10 mm, being greater than 3 mm in 2.5% of analyzed implants. Factors with possible influence on implant survival and marginal bone loss were smoking, osteopenia or osteoporosis, check-up frequency, implant surface, length and position, and type of prosthesis. 24.8% of patients remained free of complications. Patient satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, which included both totally and partially edentulous patients, long-term implant survival was more than 90% with a mean marginal bone loss of 0.77 mm and an implant survival at patient level of 78%; patient satisfaction was high despite the fact that complications were frequent.

Comparative study of two local anesthetics in the surgical extraction of mandibular third molars: bupivacaine and articaine.

OBJECTIVE: The third molar extraction is one of the most common surgical procedures in oral surgery and is usually accompanied by postoperative discomfort. It has been suggested that the longer duration of action of bupivacaine associated with the residual analgesia and the gradual onset of pain, could decrease the need for analgesics during the postoperative period. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of bupivacaine and articaine as local anesthetics for the extraction of mandibular third molars and to check whether bupivacaine produced residual analgesia. STUDY DESIGN: We compared bupivacaine 0.5% and articaine 4% with an epinephrine concentration of 1:200 000 in a crossover design model of extraction of bilaterally symmetrical mandibular third molars. RESULTS: Regarding efficacy, patients experienced less postoperative pain at 6 and 12 hours and shorter duration of soft tissue anesthesia with articaine. With respect to safety, no differences were found between the anesthetics compared, showing a similar local and systemic toxicity. With regard to the preference of patients, it was higher for articaine, the main reasons being the greater postoperative pain and swelling with bupivacaine. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that articaine seems to be a more appropriate anesthetic for the extraction of mandibular third molars due to the shorter duration of the anesthetic effect in the soft tissues, lower pain reported by patients during the immediate postoperative period and the personal preference of patients for this drug.

Analysis of new diagnostic methods in suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse publications related to examination techniques that might improve the visualisation of suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa (ViziLite system and VELscope system) or that might facilitate the cytological identification of suspicious lesions (OralCDx). METHODS: A literature search was performed, using the PubMed database and the key words "brush biopsy", "OralCDx", "ViziLite" and "Velscope", limiting the search to papers in English or Spanish published from 2002 to 2008. RESULTS: According to the results of studies identified, the ViziLite system has a sensitivity of 100% and specificity ranging from 0-14.2%, the VELscope system has a sensitivity of 98-100% and specificity of 94-100% and the Oral CDx system has a sensitivity of 71.4-100% and specificity of 32-100%. CONCLUSION: Clinical examination and histopathological confirmation with biopsy remain the gold standard for the detection of oral cancer. More randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm the positive cost-benefit relationship and the true usefulness of these "new diagnostic methods" in oral mucosal pathology.