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.

Assessment of soft and hard tissue dimensions following different treatment approaches of ligature-induced peri-implantitis defects.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate peri-implant tissue dimensions following nonsurgical (NS) and surgical therapy (S) employing different decontamination protocols of advanced ligature-induced peri-implantitis in dogs. MATERIAL & METHODS: Peri-implantitis defects (n = 5 dogs, n = 30 implants) were randomly and equally allocated in a split-mouth design to NS or S treatment using either an Er:YAG laser (ERL), an ultrasonic device (VUS), or plastic curettes + local application of metronidazole gel (PCM), respectively. Horizontal bone thickness (hBT) and soft tissue thickness (hMT) were measured at different reference points: (v0) at the marginal portion of the peri-implant mucosa (PM); (v1) at 50% of the distance from PM to bone crest (BC); (v2) at the BC; (v3) at the most coronal extension of the bone-to-implant contact. Vertical peri-implant tissue height was calculated from PM to BC. RESULTS: All of the treatment groups showed a gradual hMT increase from v0 to the v2 reference point, followed by a reduction from v2 to the v3 region. The S-VUS subgroup tended to be associated with higher hMT values at the v0 region than the NS-VUS subgroup (0.44 mm versus 0.31 mm). PM-BC distance varied from 2.22 to 2.83 mm in the NS group, and from 2.07 to 2.38 in the S group. CONCLUSION: Vertical and horizontal peri-implant tissue dimensions were similar in different treatment groups.

Avaliação do efeito de cepas probióticas em biofilme de S. aureus sobre discos de titânio com superfície tratada / Assessment of probiotic bacterial strains effect on S. aureus biofilm on titanium discs with treated surfaces

Resumo Introdução As doenças peri-implantares apresentam como um dos principais fatores etiológicos o biofilme bacteriano, geralmente formado por uma microbiota semelhante à das doenças periodontais. Seu tratamento está centrado na descontaminação da superfície do implante e na remoção mecânica do biofilme, podendo ainda estar associado à administração de agentes antimicrobianos. Nesse sentido, tem sido cogitada a utilização de probióticos, que são microrganismos benéficos à saúde e que podem ter grande importância na cavidade oral, como coadjuvante no tratamento das peri-implantites. Objetivo Avaliar o efeito das cepas probióticas de Lactobacillus brevis e Bifidobacterium bifidum no crescimento do biofilme monoespécie de Staphylococcus aureus. Material e método Discos de titânio padronizados e com superfície tratada foram submersos em meio contendo caldo BHI e Staphylococcus aureus durante sete dias. Após esse período, o caldo foi retirado, os discos foram lavados e, então, introduzidos em um novo caldo BHI contendo as suspensões probióticas, sendo assim comparados a um grupo controle, sem probióticos. As amostras foram incubadas por 24h e então foram realizadas as diluições e a contagem das UFC (unidades formadoras de colônia) para Staphylococcus aureus. Resultado Após análise estatística dos dados, observou-se que a adição de ambos os probióticos resultaram em redução significativa (p<0,05) de UFC, quando comparados ao controle. Conclusão Conclui-se que os probióticos analisados (Lactobacillus brevis e Bifidobacterium bifidum) reduziram consideravelmente o crescimento do patógeno Staphylococcus aureus. Além disso, a cepa de Lactobacillus brevis apresentou efeito inibidor superior ao da cepa Bifidobacterium bifidum para ser utilizada como controle do biofilme bacteriano de Staphylococcus aureus.

Abstract Introduction One of the main etiological factors for peri-implant diseases is the bacterial biofilm, which usually features a similar microbiota to periodontal diseases. Its treatment focus on the decontamination of the implant surface and on the mechanical removal of biofilm, and it may also be associated to the administration of antimicrobial agents. Thus, the use of probiotics has been considered, since they feature beneficial microorganisms to health and may be of great importance for the oral cavity as an adjunct for the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Objective The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of probiotic strains of Lactobacillus brevis and Bifidobacterium bifidum on the growth of single-species biofilm of Staphylococcus aureus. Material and method Standardized surface-treated titanium discs were submerged in a medium containing BHI broth and Staphylococcus aureus, for 7 days. After this period, the broth was removed, the discs were washed and, then, submerged in a new BHI broth containing probiotic suspensions and compared to a control group (with no probiotics). Samples were incubated for 24 hours and then the dilutions and CFU (colony-forming units) counting for Staphylococcus aureus were performed. Result Statistical analysis revealed that the addition of both probiotics resulted in a significant reduction (p<0,05) of CFU, when compared to the control group. Conclusion The assessed probiotics (Lactobacillus brevis and Bifidobacterium bifidum) considerably reduced Staphylococcus aureus growth. In addition, Lactobacillus brevis strain presented a superior inhibition effect than Bifidobacterium bifidum strain for Staphylococcus aureus bacterial biofilm control.

A Novel Treatment Decision Tree and Literature Review of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis.

BACKGROUND: Although retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is not a common sequela of dental implant surgery, its prevalence has been reported in the literature to be 0.26%. Incidence of RPI is reported to increase to 7.8% when teeth adjacent to the implant site have a previous history of root canal therapy, and it is correlated with distance between implant and adjacent tooth and/or with time from endodontic treatment of adjacent tooth to implant placement. Minimum 2 mm space between implant and adjacent tooth is needed to decrease incidence of apical RPI, with minimum 4 weeks between completion of endodontic treatment and actual implant placement. The purpose of this study is to compile all available treatment modalities and to provide a decision tree as a general guide for clinicians to aid in diagnosis and treatment of RPI. METHODS: Literature search was performed for articles published in English on the topic of RPI. Articles selected were case reports with study populations ranging from 1 to 32 patients. Any case report or clinical trial that attempted to treat or rescue an implant diagnosed with RPI was included. RESULTS: Predominant diagnostic presentation of a lesion was presence of sinus tract at buccal or facial abscess of apical portion of implant, and subsequent periapical radiographs taken demonstrated a radiolucent lesion. On the basis of case reports analyzed, RPI was diagnosed between 1 week and 4 years after implant placement. Twelve of 20 studies reported that RPI lesions were diagnosed within 6 months after implant placement. A step-by-step decision tree is provided to allow clinicians to triage and properly manage cases of RPI on the basis of recommendations and successful treatments provided in analyzed case reports. It is divided between symptomatic and asymptomatic implants and adjacent teeth with vital and necrotic pulps. CONCLUSIONS: Most common etiology of apical RPI is endodontic infection from neighboring teeth, which was diagnosed within 6 months after implant placement. Most common findings, radiographically and clinically, are lesions around implant apex and sinus tract. A small number of implants did not improve with treatment. Decision tree provides a path to diagnose and treat lesions to facilitate their management. Further studies are needed to focus on histologic data around periapical microbiota to establish specific etiology and differential diagnoses compared with marginal peri-implantitis and other implant-related conditions.

Preventing and Treating Peri-Implantitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A large number of treatments for peri-implantitis are available, but their cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of preventing and treating peri-implantitis. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed that followed each implant over 20 years. Supportive implant therapy (SIT) for managing peri-implant mucositis and preventing development of peri-implantitis was either provided or not. Risk of peri-implantitis was assumed to be affected by SIT and the patient's risk profile. If peri-implantitis occurred, 11 treatment strategies (non-surgical or surgical debridement alone or combined with adjunct therapies) were compared. Treatments and risk profiles determined disease progression. Modeling was performed based on systematically collected data. Primary outcomes were costs and proportion of lost implants, as assessed via Monte Carlo microsimulations. RESULTS: Not providing SIT and performing only non-surgical debridement was both least costly and least effective. The next best (more costly and effective) option was to provide SIT and perform surgical debridement (additional 0.89 euros per 1% fewer implants lost). The most effective option included bone grafts, membranes, and laser treatment (56 euros per 1%). For patients at high risk, the cost-effectiveness of SIT increased, whereas in low-risk groups, a cost-optimized strategy was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although clinical decision-making will be guided mainly by clinical condition, cost-effectiveness analyses might add another perspective. Based on these findings, an unambiguous comparative effectiveness ranking was not established. However, cost-effectiveness was predominantly determined by provision of SIT and initial treatment costs. Transferability of these findings to other healthcare systems needs further confirmation.

Cost-effectiveness of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatments.

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of various alternatives of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytical model was constructed and populated with parameter estimates from recent literature for reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) in response to eight different treatment alternatives. A micro-costing approach combined with an online expert survey was applied to simulate a decision-making scenario taking place in Germany. The treatment alternatives providing the most advantageous cost/outcome combinations were identified according to the net benefit criterion. Uncertainties regarding model input parameters were incorporated via simple and probabilistic sensitivity analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation. RESULTS: In the base case scenario, debridement alone, Air-Flow, debridement combined with PerioChip, and debridement combined with local antibiotics were identified as treatment strategies with comparably better value for money than Er:YAG laser monotherapy, Vector System, debridement combined with CHX, and photodynamic therapy. Sensitivity analysis revealed considerable decision uncertainty corresponding to limited evidence about different treatment alternatives for peri-implantitis treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Derivation of robust treatment recommendations for peri-implantitis requires more comprehensive and patient-centred evidence on peri-implantitis treatments.

Network meta-analysis for evaluating interventions in implant dentistry: the case of peri-implantitis treatment.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Evidence from head-to-head comparison trials on peri-implantitis treatment is limited, and it is therefore impossible to conduct a direct meta-analysis. We propose an alternative statistical method, network meta-analysis, for evidence synthesis, which enables to compare the results of multiple treatments. METHODS: We searched, in triplicate, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials in the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases up to and including August 2010. We also conducted a manual search of the reference lists regarding published systematic reviews and searched for gray literature in OpenSIGLE. We assessed changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and pocket probing depth (PPD) after nonsurgical and surgical treatments of peri-implantitis. The risk of bias of selected studies was determined by the use of specific criteria, and it was performed in triplicate and independently. We used multilevel mixed modeling to perform the network meta-analysis and Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulation to obtain confidence intervals for the fixed and random effects. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included in the review. All RCTs are at unclear or high risk of bias. Surgical therapy in conjunction with bone grafts and non-resorbable membranes achieved 3.52 mm greater PPD reduction than nonsurgical therapy alone, 95% high-probability density (HPD) intervals: -0.19, 6.81. Surgical treatment in conjunction with bone grafts and resorbable membranes achieved 2.80 mm greater CAL gain than nonsurgical therapy alone, 95% HPD intervals: -0.18, 5.59. CONCLUSION: Surgical procedures in peri-implantitis treatment achieve more PPD reduction and CAL gain than nonsurgical approaches. Nevertheless, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the limited number of studies included and their low methodological quality. Network meta-analysis is a useful statistical methodology for evidence synthesis and to summarize the strength and limitation in the current evidence.

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.

Quality assessment of reporting of animal studies on pathogenesis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. A systematic review using the ARRIVE guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To address the following focused question: What is the quality of reporting of pre-clinical research for the study and treatment of mucositis/peri-implantitis? MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases of the PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for animal studies reporting on pathogenesis or therapy of either peri-implant mucositits or peri-implantitis and completed by dual manual searches in duplicate between 1992 and May 2011. Quality assessment (i.e. grading of a checklist of 20 items in different categories) of selected full-text articles was performed according to the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. RESULTS: Following screening, 75 publications were eligible for the review. For publications reporting on pathogenesis (n = 7) and therapy (n = 1) of peri-implant mucositis, minimum gradings were assigned to items 5 (Methods/Ethical Statement), 9 (Methods/Housing and husbandry), 11 (Methods/Allocation animals to experimental groups), 14 (Results/Baseline data), and 17 (Results/Adverse events). For publications reporting on pathogenesis (n = 34) and therapy (n = 33) of peri-implantitis, minimum grades were mainly assigned to items 9, 11, 14, and 17. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review has identified missing information in the publications on pre-clinical research for the study and treatment of mucositis/peri-implantitis.

Decision tree for the management of periimplant diseases.

The development of implants reflects one of the foremost breakthroughs of dentistry. As the market keeps growing exponentially, the implantologist faces an unavoidable challenge, that is, how to deal with the complications associated with implants. Literature published so far has focused in dealing with the technical and surgical aspects of implant therapy. Information regarding the management of periimplant diseases is rather lacking. Hence, the purpose of this article is to provide an overview and description of periimplant diseases, along with treatment recommendations.