Risk factors for Peri-implantitis: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies and assessment of biases.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the findings from previously published meta-analyses and to assess existing biases. DATA/SOURCES: A search was conducted for meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the association between any risk factor and peri­implantitis in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos, from inception until October 2023 (PROSPERO: CRD42024512408). STUDY SELECTION: From a total of 5002 publications, 51 full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility, and 12 articles that described 41 unique meta-analyses evaluating the association between risk factors and periimplantitis were selected. Among 41 associations, 24 associations were significant. None of the associations were graded as convincing evidence. Two associations, presence of periodontitis (OR = 3.84 [95 % CI 2.58,5.72]) and cigarette smoking (RR=2.07 [95 % CI 1.41,3.04]) were graded as highly suggestive. Eight associations, diabetes mellitus, hyperglycaemia, lack of prophylaxis, history of chronic periodontal disease, ongoing or history of periodontal disease, implants located in the anterior region of the jaw (maxillary and mandibular), osteoprotegerin (OPG) gene polymorphisms, and lack of keratinized mucosal width were graded as suggestive evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Periodontitis and cigarette smoking are highly suggestive risk factors for peri­implantitis. The remaining risk factors which are suggestive require more high-quality studies to be performed to upgrade the level of evidence. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The highly suggestive and suggestive risk factors for peri­implantitis summarized in this umbrella review should be rigorously assessed, monitored and managed by clinicians to reduce the risk peri­implantitis, as well as to form part of the preoperative consent process.

Comparative Assessment of Catalase Levels in Peri-Implant Health and Disease.

Peri-implant disease pathogenesis is similar to periodontal disease pathogenesis resulting in production of pro-inflammatory mediators. These mediators alter the redox balance leading to decrease in antioxidants, among which catalase is one of the enzymatic antioxidants. The aim of the study was to compare the levels of catalase in peri-implant health and disease. The present observational study was carried out from June 2022 to December 2022 in the Department of Implantology, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India. A total of 60 patients with peri-implant health (Group 1; n = 20), peri-implant mucositis (Group 2; n = 20) and peri-implantitis (Group 3; n = 20) were enrolled. Unstimulated salivary samples were collected and subjected to ELISA for catalase analysis. Catalase levels were then compared between the groups using ANOVA. The mean catalase level in peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implanti-tis were 25.07 ± 0.44 U/mL, 18.5 6 ± 0.65 U/mL, and 11.25 ± 0.76 U/mL respectively. The difference between the three groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Catalase level decreases with severity of peri-implant diseases. Therefore, catalase can be used as a diagnostic marker for peri-implant diseases.

Clinical Assessment of Short (> 6 mm and ≤ 8.5 mm) Implants in Posterior Sites with an Average Follow-Up of 74 Months: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the survival and success rates of short (> 6 mm and ≤ 8.5 mm) implants after at least 2 years of functional loading. Implants were assessed using clinical parameters such as marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket depth (PD), keratinized mucosa width (KMW), bleeding on probing (BoP), and the peri-implant condition (mucositis or peri-implantitis). Any correlations between clinical parameters were analyzed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This observational and retrospective study included 114 posterior maxillary and mandibular implants placed in 27 women and 38 men with a mean age of 68.04 ± 9.07 years. Patients included in the study had received at least one short implant between 2001 and 2013, such that each implant was in occlusal function for at least 2 years by 2015. Patients with only long (≥ 10 mm) implants, patients with any systemic condition, and smokers were excluded from the study. PD, KMW, peri-implant condition, BoP, and MBL were the clinical parameters assessed in the study. Data on prosthesis type (single or splinted) and implant features were also obtained. All data were submitted to analysis via Mann-Whitney unpaired test, with a significance level of P < .05. Spearman correlation coefficient was also measured to verify the negative or positive correlation. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time was 74.08 months, and mean implant success and survival rates were 87.63% and 94.74%, respectively. There were 6 implant failures (5.26%). A total of 66 (59.46%) prostheses were screw-retained implant-supported restorations, and 45 (40.54%) were cemented. A total of 93 (86.49%) short implants were splinted to another implant, and 15 out of 111 (13.51%) restorations were single implants. Keratinized mucosa was missing around 43 (39%) implants, whereas PD was measured to be between 0 and 3 mm in 64.86% of implants and ≥ 4 mm in 31.53% of implants. MBL was ≤ 1.5 mm in 71.17% of cases and > two-thirds the length of the implant in 2.71% of cases. Mucositis and peri-implantitis were found in 22.52% and 7.21% of implants, respectively. The correlation coefficient showed a positive result for PD and MBL (0.11; P = .368) and negative results for PD and KMW (-0.42; P = .002) and KMW and MBL (-0.19; P = .183). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it is possible to conclude that short implants are a feasible treatment option for dental rehabilitation. They are considered an excellent alternative to complex procedures and have high survival rates after at least 2 years of follow-up, with compatible peri-implant local tissue response. Moreover, a significant negative correlation between KMW and PD was observed.

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.

Dentists' perceptions and usability testing of the implant disease risk assessment IDRA, a tool for preventing peri­implant disease: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: we aimed to explore dentists' perceptions toward the implementation of a dental informatics risk assessment tool which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri­implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: the Implant Disease Risk Assessment Tool (IDRA) was presented to a convenience sample of seven dentists working in a university clinic, whom were asked to use IDRA with the information of three clinical cases whilst thinking aloud and then fill the System Usability Scale (SUS). A semi-structured interview technique was used with audio record to allow free expression of participants' perceptions related to the IDRA. The interviews information was categorized and analyzed by the authors. RESULTS: to our knowledge, this is the first study conducted to develop a qualitative usability test of IDRA, evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and users' satisfaction. There were more variations in responses the greater the degree of complexity of the clinical case. Generally, the participants classified the tool as good, getting usability values of 77,2 (SD 19,8) and learnability 73,2 (SD 24,5). CONCLUSION: four additional factors should be considered to improve IDRA tool: 1) considering the relation between contour angle and peri-implant tissue height; 2) automatic periodontal classification in the IDRA tool after completing the periodontogram in the clinical software; 3) presentation of a flowchart to assist therapeutic decisions alongside the final score defined by the IDRA tool; 4) integrating of precision tests such as Implantsafe® DR… (dentognostics gmbh, Jena) and Oralyzer®(dentognostics gmbh, Jena). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: etiology and pathogenesis of peri­implant diseases is multifactorial. These tools must follow a natural integration to be easily applied in a clinical setting. It is important to study their usability from the clinicians' point of view, evaluating the effectiveness, efficiency, and users' satisfaction.

A novel histopathological classification of implant periapical lesion: A systematic review and treatment decision tree.

BACKGROUND: Implant periapical lesion (IPL), as a peri-implant disease originating from implant apex, maintains coronal osseointegration in the early stage. With the understanding to IPL increasingly deepened, IPL classification based on different elements was proposed although there still lacks an overall classification system. This study, aiming to systematically integrate the available data published in the literature on IPL associated with histopathology, proposed a comprehensive classification framework and treatment decision tree for IPL. METHODS AND FINDINGS: English articles on the topic of "implant periapical lesion", "retrograde peri-implantitis" and "apical peri-implantitis" were searched on PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from 1992 to 2021, and citation retrieval was performed for critical articles. Definite histopathology and radiology of IPL are indispensable criteria for including the article in the literature. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022378001). A total of 509 papers identified, 28 studies were included in this review. In only one retrospective study, 37 of 39 IPL were reported to be at the inflammatory or abscess stage. 27 cases (37 implants) were reported, including acute non-suppurative (1/37, developed to chronic granuloma), chronic granuloma (5/37), acute suppurated (2/37), chronic suppurated-fistulized (6/37), implant periapical cyst (21/37), poor bone healing (2/37), foreign body reaction (1/37). Antibiotics alone did not appear to be effective, and the consequence of surgical debridement required cautious interpretation because of the heterogeneity of lesion course and operation. Implant apicoectomy and marsupialization were predictable approaches in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: The diversiform nature of IPL in the case reports confirms the need for such histopathological classification, which may enhance the comparison and management of different category.

Assessment of salivary alpha amylase and mucin-4 before and after non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

BACKGROUND: The present study was based on the null hypothesis that there is no difference in clinicoradiographic parameters and whole salivary alpha amylase (AA) and mucin-4 levels before and after non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) of patients with peri-implant mucositis (PM). The aim was to assess whole salivary AA and mucin-4 levels before and after treatment of PM. METHODS: Patients with PM (Group-1) and individuals without peri-implant diseases (Group-2) were included. Demographic data was collected and peri-implant modified plaque and bleeding indices (mPI and mBI, respectively), probing depth (PD) and crestal bone loss were measured at baseline. Levels of AA and mucin-4 were assessed in unstimulated whole saliva samples. All patients underwent full-mouth non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) and NSMD; and clinical parameters and salivary biomarkers were re-assessed after 3 months. Level of significance was set at P < 0.01. RESULTS: Twenty-six and 32 individuals were included in groups 1 and 2, respectively. None of the participants had periodontitis. At baseline clinical periodontal parameters (PI [P < 0.001], GI [P < 0.001], clinical AL [P < 0.001] and PD [P < 0.001]) were significantly high in Group-1 than Group-2. At 3-month follow-up, there was a statistically significant reduction in clinical periodontal and peri-implant parameters (PI [P < 0.01], GI [P < 0.01], and PD [P < 0.01]) in Group-1 compared with their baseline values. At baseline, salivary AA levels were significantly high in Group-1 than Group-2 (P < 0.01). At 3-month follow-up, there was no significant difference in whole salivary AA levels among patients in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: The AA and mucin-4 levels are potential biomarkers for evaluation of peri-implant diseases including PM. Mechanical instrumentation continues to be the most predictable treatment option for the management of peri-implant diseases.

Identification of a Predictive Decision Model Using Different Data Mining Algorithms for Diagnosing Peri-implant Health and Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine a predictive decision model for peri-implant health and disease and to reveal the highest accuracy of prediction using three different data mining methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included a total of 216 patients with 542 dental implants from the Periodontology Department of Gazi University. The implants were classified into peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis groups based on established clinical and radiographic assessments. Prediction models were created using clinical variables in combination with possible risk factors for peri-implant diseases. Different data mining methods (decision-tree [DT]; J48), logistic regression, and artificial neural network (multilayer perceptron [MLP]) were compared to yield a better predictive decision model based on predictor variables with the highest potential of effect. RESULTS: The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis among the participants of the specialist referral periodontal practice of the university was 36.1% (95% CI: 29.7 to 42.5) and 34.7% (95% CI: 28.4 to 41.0) at the patient level, respectively. The J48 method revealed a higher prediction of peri-implant health and disease with an accuracy of 0.871 compared with the logistic regression and MLP methods (0.832 and 0.852, respectively) for the present data set. In this specific patient population, the J48 model revealed the top-level node as "bleeding on probing (BOP)." "Maintenance therapy" and "medication use" were noted as powerful predictors in the next split-levels. CONCLUSION: The J48 model presented an acceptable predictive accuracy of peri-implant health and disease. The model revealed BOP as a major predictive clinical parameter when evaluated with possible risk factors for this patient population.

Evaluation of the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A retrospective study in patients with treated periodontitis and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

AIM: To evaluate the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) tool for the prediction of peri-implantitis in treated periodontitis patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after at least 5 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the patient pool of implant patients enrolled in a regular supportive periodontal therapy programme (SPT) for at least 5 years, 239 patients were screened. Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent evaluation through the criteria of the IDRA tool. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including 95% confidence intervals were estimated. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (43 males and 36 females, 8 smokers), aged on average 59.0 years (range: 40-79 years) at baseline (i.e. FDP delivery) were analysed. The calculated IDRA-risk was in 34 patients (42.5%) a moderate risk, while 45 patients (56.3%) were considered at high IDRA-risk. One patient categorized at low IDRA-risk was excluded from the analysis. The AUC was 0.613 (95% CI: 0.464-0.762) if the IDRA-risk was associated with prevalence of peri-implantitis at the most recent follow-up. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 4 patients (12%) at moderate and in 12 patients (27%) at high IDRA-risk, respectively. The calculated odds ratio for developing peri-implantitis in patients with high IDRA-risk compared with patients with moderate IDRA-risk was 2.727 with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.793-9.376). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, the IDRA algorithm might represent a promising tool to assess patients at moderate or high risk of developing peri-implantitis.

Assessment of peri-implant defects at titanium and zirconium dioxide implants by means of periapical radiographs and cone beam computed tomography: An in-vitro examination.

OBJECTIVE: To test the accuracy of measurement of interproximal peri-implant bone defects at titanium (Ti) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2 ) implants by digital periapical radiography (PR) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 18 models, each containing one Ti and one ZrO2 implant, were cast in dental stone. Six models each were allocated to following defect groups: A-no peri-implant defect, B-1 mm width defect, C-1.5 mm width defect. The defect width was measured with a digital sliding caliper. Subsequently, the models were scanned by means of PR and CBCT. Three examiners assessed the defect width on PR and CBCT. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied to detect differences between imaging techniques and implant types. RESULTS: For PR, the deviation of the defect width measurement (mm) for groups A, B, and C amounted to 0.01 ± 0.03, -0.02 ± 0.06, and -0.00 ± 0.04 at Ti and 0.05 ± 0.02, 0.01 ± 0.03, and 0.09 ± 0.03 at ZrO2 implants. The corresponding values (mm) for CBCT reached 0.10 ± 0.11, 0.26 ± 0.05, and 0.24 ± 0.08 at Ti and 1.07 ± 0.06, 0.64 ± 0.37, and 0.54 ± 0.17 at ZrO2 implants. Except for Ti with defect A, measurements in PR were significantly more accurate in comparison to CBCT (p ≤ 0.05). Both methods generally yielded more accurate measurements for Ti than for ZrO2 . CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of interproximal peri-implant defect width at Ti and ZrO2 implants was more accurate in PR in comparison to CBCT. Measurements in CBCT always led to an overestimation of the defect width, reaching clinical relevance for ZrO2 implants.

"Burden of the Triumph:" Burden of peri-implantitis in Indian population - A mathematical model.

CONTEXT: India suffers from a heavy burden of oral diseases. Dental implants (DIs) are prescribed widely by the dental practitioners to replace lost natural teeth. There is no estimate, however, to determine the number of DIs or the number of people with peri-implantitis or the failure of implants after placement. In this modeling study, we attempted to estimate the prevalence of adult Indians who would choose DI in the near future and to calculate the peri-implantitis and failure of DI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Global Burden of Disease database (2016), the number of dental caries in permanent dentition, periodontal diseases, and edentulism was obtained. Empirical assumptions of patients with anodontia in urban and rural areas who opted for DI, percentage of implants placed, the affordability factors, and mathematical models for DI were formed and executed. Peri-implantitis and survival data from literary evidence were collated. RESULTS: Based on assumptions, 909,643 Indians, (830,231-858,703) would choose DI. Estimated number of peri-implantitis would be 145,543-254,700 and estimated number of failures should be 50,940-79,412 in the near future. CONCLUSIONS: In spite of the high economic challenge and the risks or complications of peri-implantitis, DIs are gaining prominence. It is the dentists' burden to face the renewed challenges due to emerge and provide remedial measures.

Risk indicators for Peri-implantitis. A cross-sectional study with 916 implants.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify systemic and local risk indicators associated with peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients treated with 916 osseointegrated titanium implants, in function for at least 1 year, were included in the present study. The implants were installed at the Foundation for Scientific and Technological Development of Dentistry (FUNDECTO) - University of Sao Paulo (USP) - from 1998 to 2012. Factors related to patient's systemic conditions (heart disorders, hypertension, smoking habits, alcoholism, liver disorders, hepatitis, gastrointestinal disease, diabetes mellitus I and II, hyperthyroidism or hypothyroidism, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, menopause, osteoporosis, active periodontal disease, history of periodontal disease and bruxism), implant's characteristics (location, diameter, length, connection, shape, and antagonist), and clinical parameters (wear facets, periodontal status on the adjacent tooth, plaque accumulation on the adjacent tooth, modified plaque index, sulcus bleeding index, probing depth, bleeding on probing, width of keratinized tissue and marginal recession). RESULTS: An increased risk of 2.2 times for history of periodontal disease (PD), 3.6 times for cemented restorations compared to screw-retained prostheses, 2.4 times when wear facets were displayed on the prosthetic crown and 16.1 times for total rehabilitations when compared to single rehabilitations were found. Logistic regression analysis did not show any association between the implant's characteristics and peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: A history of periodontal disease, cemented prostheses, presences of wear facets on the prosthetic crown and full mouth rehabilitations were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis. Implants' characteristics were not related to the presence of peri-implantitis.

Distinguishing predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment and diagnostics of plaque induced, surgically and prosthetically triggered peri-implantitis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether specific predictive profiles for patient-based risk assessment/diagnostics can be applied in different subtypes of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included patients with at least two implants (one or more presenting signs of peri-implantitis). Anamnestic, clinical, and implant-related parameters were collected and scored into a single database. Dental implant was chosen as the unit of analysis, and a complete screening protocol was established. The implants affected by peri-implantitis were then clustered into three subtypes in relation to the identified triggering factor: purely plaque-induced or prosthetically or surgically triggered peri-implantitis. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the characteristics and risk factors between peri-implantitis and healthy implants, as well as to compare clinical parameters and distribution of risk factors between plaque, prosthetically and surgically triggered peri-implantitis. The predictive profiles for subtypes of peri-implantitis were estimated using data mining tools including regression methods and C4.5 decision trees. RESULTS: A total of 926 patients previously treated with 2812 dental implants were screened for eligibility. Fifty-six patients (6.04%) with 332 implants (4.44%) met the study criteria. Data from 125 peri-implantitis and 207 healthy implants were therefore analyzed and included in the statistical analysis. Within peri-implantitis group, 51 were classified as surgically triggered (40.8%), 38 as prosthetically triggered (30.4%), and 36 as plaque-induced (28.8%) peri-implantitis. For peri-implantitis, 51 were associated with surgical risk factor (40.8%), 38 with prosthetic risk factor (30.4%), 36 with purely plaque-induced risk factor (28.8%). The variables identified as predictors of peri-implantitis were female sex (OR = 1.60), malpositioning (OR = 48.2), overloading (OR = 18.70), and bone reconstruction (OR = 2.35). The predictive model showed 82.35% of accuracy and identified distinguishing predictive profiles for plaque, prosthetically and surgically triggered peri-implantitis. The model was in accordance with the results of risk analysis being the external validation for model accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: It can be concluded that plaque induced and prosthetically and surgically triggered peri-implantitis are different entities associated with distinguishing predictive profiles; hence, the appropriate causal treatment approach remains necessary. The advanced data mining model developed in this study seems to be a promising tool for diagnostics of peri-implantitis subtypes.

The Concept of Platform Switching to Preserve Peri-implant Bone Level: Assessment of Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews.

PURPOSE: To assess the methodologic quality of systematic reviews on the effect of platform switching upon peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature search of several databases was conducted by two reviewers. Articles were considered for quality assessment if they met the following inclusion criterion: systematic reviews that aimed at investigating the effect of platform switching/mismatch on marginal bone levels around dental implants. Two independent examiners evaluated the review publications using two quality-ranking scales (assessment of multiple systematic reviews [AMSTAR] and Glenny checklist). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results, and Cohen's kappa coefficients were calculated to appraise interrater agreement of each checklist. RESULTS: Overall, five systematic reviews (including three of them with meta-analysis) were evaluated. The mean AMSTAR score ± standard deviation was 8.4 ± 2.6 (range, 4 to 11), and the mean Glenny score was 10.8 ± 2.9 (range, 6 to 14), showing high statistical correlation (rs = 0.98, P = .005). Cohen interexaminer test yielded values of κ = 0.88 and κ = 0.86 for the AMSTAR and Glenny checklist, respectively. The AMSTAR items rated positive in 78%, whereas 18% met the criteria for "no" and 4% were "not applicable." Only one review article met all criteria. Items of the Glenny checklist rated positive in 73% and negative in 27%. All but one study with the lowest quality scores (finding no difference) demonstrated a clinical benefit of implant platform switching in preserving the peri-implant marginal bone loss. CONCLUSION: According to the quality-ranking scales appraised, substantial methodologic variability was found in systematic assessment of benefits with the platform switching concept to preserve peri-implant bone level. High-quality systematic reviews, however, generally favored platform switching over platform matching.

A comparison of teeth and implants during maintenance therapy in terms of the number of disease-free years and costs -- an in vivo internal control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the cost minimization and cost effectiveness involved in maintaining teeth and implants for patients treated for periodontal disease. MATERIALS & METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out encompassing all patients who had initial periodontal treatment followed by implant placement and maintenance therapy in a specialist practice in Norway. The neighbouring tooth and the contra-lateral tooth were used as controls. The number of disease-free years and the extra cost over and above maintenance treatment for both teeth and implants were recorded. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 43 patients with an average age of 67.4 years. The patients had 847 teeth at the initial examination and received 119 implants. Two implants were removed 13 and 22 years after insertion. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 53.5% at the patient level and 31.1% at the implant level. The prevalence of periodontitis was 53.4% at the patient level and 7.6% at the tooth level. The mean number of disease-free years was: implants: 8.66; neighbouring tooth: 9.08; contra-lateral teeth: 9.93. These mean values were not statistically significantly different from each other. The extra cost of maintaining the implants was about five times higher for implants than for teeth. CONCLUSION: The number of disease-free years was the same for neighbouring teeth, contra-lateral teeth and implants. However, due to the high prevalence of peri-implantitis, the cost of maintaining implants was much higher than the cost of maintaining teeth.

[Risk assessment in patients undergoing osseous antiresorptive therapy in dentistry. An update]. / Risikobeurteilung von Patienten mit ossärer, antiresorptiver Therapie in der zahnärztlichen Praxis. Ein Update.

Antiresorptive therapy is prescribed in particular for the treatment of osteoporosis as well as for the treatment of tumor-induced hypercalcemia and metastatic bone disease. As a consequence, osteopathologies such as bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (BRONJ) may occur. In 2008, our department reported on BRONJ in a paper that provided dental clinicians with information on diagnostics, therapy, and prevention (Dannemann et al., Schweizer Monatsschrift für Zahnmedizin, Vol. 118, 2/2008). During the last 8 years, new findings have emerged concerning potential etiologies, modes of therapy, and the use of additional antiresorptive therapies. For example, an important point for colleagues in dental practice is the now common intravenous administration of bisphosphonates in osteoporosis patients, which may lead to uncertainty when assessing risk in these patients. For this reason, this article provides an update of the above mentioned publication and gives dental clinicians an updated guideline concerning risk assessment in patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy. In this context, a risk assessment algorithm is presented. The pathogenesis, diagnosis, therapy, and prevention of BRONJ and oral implantation in patients receiving antiresorptive therapy are addressed with regard to the current literature. Finally, we present two example cases.

Peri-implantitis prevalence and treatment in implant-oriented private practices: a cross-sectional postal and Internet survey.

This survey aimed to estimate the subjective prevalence of peri-implantitis and its management in the private with and without board certified specialization. For this purpose, a cross-sectional postal and internet survey of 521 dentists, representing all members of the Swiss Society of Oral Implantology (SGI) was conducted (year 2010). The questionnaire consisted of four sections assessing 1) general information regarding the practice setting and education, 2) general questions regarding implantation profile and 3) specific questions regarding the prevalence and experience with the management of peri-implantitis. In the fourth section, therapy options of three exemplary cases were assessed. The data were separately evaluated and compared for specialists (S) and n₋specialists (N-S). A total of 253 questionnaires could be included in the present study. The results revealed that specialists placed significantly more implants than non-specialists. The subjective prevalence of cases with peri₋implantitis was 5-6 and 7-9% after 5 and 10 years, respectively. The polled dentists perceived periodontitis (N-S: 72%; S: 80%), smoking (N-S: 71; S: 77%) and bad compliance (S: 53; N-S: 61%) as the most important risk factors for peri-implantitis. Chlorhexidine was the most frequently used antiseptic agent for disinfection. A surgical approach to treat peri-implantitis was reported by more than 80% of all dentists. Specialists used significantly more resective or regenerative approaches than non-specialists.