Change in clinical parameters after subgingival instrumentation for the treatment of periodontitis and timing of periodontal re-evaluation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the changes in periodontal parameters (reduction in probing pocket depth [PPD], gain in clinical attachment level [CAL] and reduction in full-mouth bleeding on probing [BoP]) after subgingival instrumentation of periodontal pockets at different time points in systemically healthy patients suffering from periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four databases were searched for RCTs that carried out subgingival instrumentation in periodontal pockets and evaluated PPD at a minimum of two consecutive time points other than baseline. The analysis was conducted for both all pocket depths and stratified for initially shallow (4-5 mm) and deep (≥6 mm) pockets and data were extracted for various time points, 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 months. Weighted mean effects (WMEs) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) and predictive intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, and all of them were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that for both shallow and deep pockets there was a small though clinically meaningful change between 1- to 2-month and 3- to 4-month time points and between these and 5-6 months. CONCLUSIONS: In systemically healthy patients, the greater part of reduction in PPD and gain in CAL occurs within the first 1-2 months after subgingival instrumentation. However, additional benefits in terms of pocket depth reduction occur beyond these early time points.

Effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A multi-centre randomized clinical trial.

AIM: The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial with 12 months of follow-up aimed at studying the added effect of sub-marginal instrumentation before surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited. After a behavioural intervention phase including oral hygiene instructions, patients were randomized to either receiving supra- and sub-marginal instrumentation on their affected implants (control group: 21 patients and 29 implants) or only supra-marginal instrumentation (test group: 21 patients and 24 implants), before undergoing surgery. Changes in the deepest probing pocket depth (PPD) with respect to baseline and a composite outcome of treatment success (no implant loss, no bone loss > 0.5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration on probing [BoP/SoP], and PPD ≤ 5 mm) at the 12-month examination were regarded as the primary outcomes of the trial. RESULTS: At the 12-month examination, changes in the deepest PPD with respect to baseline amounted to -2.96 mm in the control group and to -3.11 mm in the test one (MD = -0.16; SE = 0.56; p = .769), while 21.4% of the implants in the control group and 33.3% in the test group presented treatment success (OR = 1.83; SE = 1.15; p = .338). With the exception of a longer non-surgical treatment duration in the control group (differences in  = -14.29 min; SE = 2.91; p < .001), no other secondary (e.g., soft-tissue recession, keratinized mucosa height, and bone level changes, as well as BoP, SoP, profuse bleeding and implant loss rates) or exploratory (i.e., early wound healing, aesthetics, surgical and total treatment duration, surgery difficulty, intra-operative bleeding, and adverse events) outcome demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The present multi-centre randomized clinical trial did not demonstrate an added effect of performing sub-marginal instrumentation 6 weeks before the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Larger clinical trials are however needed to confirm the present findings (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03620331).

Implant failure and clinical and radiographic outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the implant failure rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants affected by peri-implantitis that received surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify studies that examined implant failure and biological outcomes after surgical peri-implantitis treatment, including ≥ 10 patients and reporting on a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Data and risk of bias were assessed qualitatively and quantitively. Surgical modalities were subdivided into reconstructive, non-reconstructive and combined. Meta-analyses were performed for implant failure, marginal bone level and probing pocket depth at 12 and 36 months with the respective subset of available data for each time and endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 45 studies with 3,463 treated implants were included in the quantitative evaluation. Meta-analyses revealed low implant failure rates of 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.4%, -2.1%) and 4.2% (95% confidence interval 1.0%, -8.8%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively. No significant difference between the subgroups was observed at 12 months. At 36 months, reconstructive modalities showed a significantly lower implant failure rate (1.0%; 95% confidence interval 0.0%, 5.0%; P = 0.04, χ2(1) = 4.1) compared to non-reconstructive modalities (8.0%; 95% confidence interval 2.0%, 18.0%). The mean probing pocket depth was 3.71 mm (95% confidence interval 3.48, 3.94 mm) at 12 months and 3.63 mm (95% confidence interval 3.02, 4.24 mm) at 36 months. The mean marginal bone loss was 3.31 mm (95% confidence interval 2.89, 3.74 mm) at 12 months and 2.38 mm (95% confidence interval 1.01, 3.74 mm) at 36 months. No significant differences between the modalities were observed for bleeding on probing after either of these time points. Cumulative interventions during supportive therapy were reported in 9% of the studies. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis results in a low implant failure rate in the short and medium term. No differences were noted between the different interventions with regard to failure rate. Surrogate therapeutic endpoints were improved after treatment, without significant differences between the different modalities. Therapeutic success and/or disease resolution and cumulative interventions during supportive therapy are seldom reported in the literature, but limited long-term outcomes are documented consistently.

Full arch rehabilitation after failure of implants and teeth supporting an extensive fixed dental prosthesis: a staged approach.

The present clinical report describes athe treatment strategy for transition from of full-arch restorations supported, either partially or fully supported by failing implants that need to be removed. More specifically the staged approach proposes a deferred treatment sequence in which the failing implants or teeth are not all replaced simultaneously. On the contrary according to this technique, some failing natural or artificial abutments are preserved momentarily in order to maintain the patient with a fixed provisional restoration at all times throughout the execution of treatment, from the surgical phases until delivery of the final restoration. The present clinical report describes the staged approach in detail, compares it to other treatment options and illustrates all phases of therapy with a clinical case.