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 Limitations of Periapical X-ray Assessment in Endodontic Diagnosis-A Systematic Review.

Diagnosis is a key aspect in endodontic treatment, in a decade where invasive interventions are misapprehended as social tendency instead of medical necessity. All diagnostic facets should be considered before intending the operative phase. Intraoral endodontic radiology-based diagnosis has been shown to be limited. Periapical X-ray is the most used endodontic imaging, yet it does not provide high accuracy. Traditionally, dentists have been trained to diagnose a cyst by certain aspects (size, shape and appearance); hence, an assumption that teeth are affected by "periapical cyst" were subjected to unnecessary extraction or apicoectomy. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the publications that relate the histological diagnosis of a periapical lesion (considered the gold standard) to intraoral X-ray investigation. Ovid Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Mendeley and Scopus were searched for English-language studies comparing periapical diagnosis obtained by using two techniques (histopathology and X-ray). Sixteen articles were included for the final analysis (qualitative and quantitative evaluation) out of which only two supported the statement that periapical diagnosis can be coherently assessed through periapical imaging. Although there is not enough evidence to deliver a definitive conclusion, there are many publications that refute the diagnosis of a cyst via periapical X-ray.