Conventional diagnostic criteria for periodontal diseases (plaque-induced gingivitis and periodontitis).

This narrative review addresses conventional diagnostic criteria used in clinical practice to discriminate between periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis. Visual examination of the color and texture of the periodontal tissues, assessment of plaque deposits, periodontal probing assessments, and diagnostic imaging enable the collation of information to make a periodontal diagnosis, followed by an appropriate treatment plan. The periodontal probe is an essential diagnostic tool to assess probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, and the degree of furcation involvement at multirooted teeth. When clinical signs and symptoms of periodontitis are identified, diagnostic imaging enables evaluation of the level and extent of bone destruction and bone defect morphology. The diagnostic process requires clinicians who are trained to evaluate, record, and interpret these measures. This narrative review focuses on conventional clinical diagnostic parameters which, despite their limitations, are considered the current standard of care.

Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: key features and differences.

Peri-implant diseases are frequent complications that occur around osseointegrated endosseous implants and are the result of an imbalance between the bacterial challenge and host response. Peri-implant diseases may affect the peri-implant mucosa only (peri-implant mucositis) or also involve the supporting bone (peri-implantitis). Early detection of peri-implant diseases and timely treatment is important for the success of dental implant treatment. Peri-implant probing is essential to assess the peri-implant health status and should be done at each recall visit. Dental practitioners should be familiar with the clinical and radiological features of both conditions in order to make an accurate diagnosis and determine the appropriate treatment required. This article aims to provide clinicians with an understanding of the key differences between peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Patient benefits following implant treatment in partially and fully edentulous patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address patient benefits associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs), (b) improvement in orofacial function, and (c) preservation of orofacial tissues in partially and fully edentulous patients following provision of implant-retained/supported dental prostheses were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary of the 7th ITI Consensus Conference, taking place in 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal. RESULTS: Edentulous patients wearing complete dentures (CD) experience substantial improvements in overall dPROs and orofacial function following treatment with either complete implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP) or implant overdentures (IODs). With respect to dPROs, mandibular IODs retained by two implants are superior to IODs retained by one implant. However, increasing the number of implants beyond two, does not further improve dPROs. In fully edentulous patients, rehabilitation with CIFDP or IOD is recommended to benefit the preservation of alveolar bone and masseter muscle thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Completely edentulous patients benefit substantially when at least the mandible is restored using an CIFDP or an IOD compared to CD. In fully edentulous patients, implant prostheses are the best option for tooth replacement. The availability of this treatment modality should be actively promoted in all edentulous communities, including those with limited access and means.

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants, with peri-implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change. RESULTS: All 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12-month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro-intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups. Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017).

Supportive care for the prevention of disease recurrence/progression following peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of supportive care provision, frequency and protocol in patients treated for peri-implantitis, as reported in prospective and retrospective studies of at least 3-years duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of three electronic databases was undertaken up to 21 July 2022 and supplemented by hand-search to identify studies that included participants treated for peri-implantitis and followed for at least 3 years. Owing to high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not appropriate, and therefore, data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines for reporting were followed. RESULTS: The search identified 2596 studies. Of 270 records selected during screening, 255 were excluded through independent review and 15 studies (10 prospective and 5 retrospective, with at least 20 patients) were retained for qualitative assessments. Study designs, population characteristics, supportive care protocols and reported outcomes varied markedly. Thirteen of the 15 studies had low risk of bias. Supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) following different surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols and with recall intervals varying between 2 months and annually resulted in peri-implant tissue stability (no disease recurrence or progression) ranging from 24.4% to 100% at patient level and from 28.3% to 100% at implant level. Sevenhundred and eighty-five patients with 790 implants were included in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of SPIC following peri-implantitis therapy may prevent disease recurrence or progression. Insufficient evidence is available to identify (i) a specific supportive care protocol for secondary prevention of peri-implantitis, (ii) the effect of adjunctive local antiseptic agents in the secondary prevention of peri-implantitis and (iii) the impact of frequency of supportive care measures. Prospective, randomised, controlled studies designed to evaluate supportive care protocols are needed in future.

Occurrence, associated factors and soft tissue reconstructive therapy for buccal soft tissue dehiscence at dental implants: Consensus report of group 3 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS: Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION: Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations.

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.

Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA-a tool for preventing peri-implant disease.

OBJECTIVE: This treatment concept paper introduces a risk assessment tool, the Implant Disease Risk Assessment, (IDRA) which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The functional risk assessment diagram was constructed incorporating eight parameters, each with documented evidence for an association with peri-implantitis. RESULTS: The eight vectors of the diagram include (1) assessment of a history of periodontitis (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) (3) number of teeth/implants with probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm (4) the ratio of periodontal bone loss (evaluated from a radiograph) divided by the patient's age (5) periodontitis susceptibility as described by the staging and grading categories from the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (Journal of Periodontology, 89 Suppl 1, S159-S172, 2018) (6) the frequency/compliance with supportive periodontal therapy (7) the distance in mm from the restorative margin of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest and (8) prosthesis-related factors including cleanability and fit of the implant-supported prosthesis. CONCLUSION: The combination of these factors in a risk assessment tool, IDRA, may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for development of peri-implantitis.

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Risks and biologic complications associated with implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address topics related to biologic risks and complications associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) diagnosis of peri-implantitis, (b) complications associated with implants in augmented sites, (c) outcomes following treatment of peri-implantitis, and (d) implant therapy in geriatric patients and/or patients with systemic diseases were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion in Group 4. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS: Bleeding on probing (BOP) alone is insufficient for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis. The positive predictive value of BOP alone for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis varies and is dependent on the prevalence of peri-implantitis within the population. For patients with implants in augmented sites, the prevalence of peri-implantitis and implant loss is low over the medium to long term. Peri-implantitis treatment protocols which include individualized supportive care result in high survival of implants after 5 years with about three-quarters of implants still present. Advanced age alone is not a contraindication for implant therapy. Implant placement in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive therapy is contraindicated due to the associated high risk for complications. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of peri-implantitis requires the presence of BOP as well as progressive bone loss. Prevalence of peri-implantitis for implants in augmented sites is low. Peri-implantitis treatment should be followed by individualized supportive care. Implant therapy for geriatric patients is not contraindicated; however, comorbidities and autonomy should be considered.

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals. RESULTS: The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively. CONCLUSION: Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients.

Peri-implant mucositis.

OBJECTIVES: This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. FINDINGS: Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Peri-implant mucositis.

OBJECTIVES: This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. FINDINGS: Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Supportive peri-implant therapy following anti-infective surgical peri-implantitis treatment: 5-year survival and success.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra- and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of peri-implant bone loss. RESULTS: Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria. At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years. CONCLUSION: Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period.

The therapy of peri-implantitis: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the success of treatments aimed at the resolution of peri-implantitis in patients with osseointegrated implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The potentially relevant literature was assessed independently by two reviewers to identify case series and comparative studies describing the treatment of peri-implantitis with a follow-up of at least 3 months. Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. For the purposes of this review, a composite criterion for successful treatment outcome was used which comprised implant survival with mean probing depth < 5 mm and no further bone loss. RESULTS: A total of 43 publications were included: 4 papers describing 3 nonsurgical case series, 13 papers describing 10 comparative studies of nonsurgical interventions, 15 papers describing 14 surgical case series, and 11 papers describing 6 comparative studies of surgical interventions. No trials comparing nonsurgical with surgical interventions were found. The length of follow-up varied from 3 months to 7.5 years. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, peri-implantitis case definitions, outcome variables, and reporting, no meta-analysis was performed. Eleven studies could be evaluated according to a composite success criterion. Successful treatment outcomes at 12 months were reported in 0% to 100% of patients treated in 9 studies and in 75% to 93% of implants treated in 2 studies. Commonalities in treatment approaches between studies included (1) a pretreatment phase, (2) cause-related therapy, and (3) a maintenance care phase. CONCLUSIONS: While the available evidence does not allow any specific recommendations for the therapy of peri-implantitis, successful treatment outcomes at 12 months were reported in a majority of patients in 7 studies. Although favorable short-term outcomes were reported in many studies, lack of disease resolution as well as progression or recurrence of disease and implant loss despite treatment were also reported. The reported outcomes must be viewed in the context of the varied peri-implantitis case definitions and severity of disease included as well as the heterogeneity in study design, length of follow-up, and exclusion/inclusion criteria.

Surgical and nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Learned and unlearned concepts.

This review aims to highlight concepts relating to nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy, which have been learned and unlearned over the past few decades. A number of treatment procedures, such as gingival curettage and aggressive removal of contaminated root cementum, have been unlearned. Advances in technology have resulted in the introduction of a range of new methods for use in nonsurgical periodontal therapy, including machine-driven instruments, lasers, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and local antimicrobial-delivery devices. However, these methods have not been shown to offer significant benefits over and above nonsurgical debridement using hand instruments. The method of debridement is therefore largely dependent on the preferences of the operator and the patient. Recent evidence indicates that specific systemic antimicrobials may be indicated for use as adjuncts to nonsurgical debridement in patients with advanced disease. Full-mouth disinfection protocols have been proven to be a relevant treatment option. We have learned that while nonsurgical and surgical methods result in similar long-term treatment outcomes, surgical therapy results in greater probing-depth reduction and clinical attachment gain in initially deep pockets. The surgical technique chosen seems to have limited influence upon changes in clinical attachment gain. What has not changed is the importance of thorough mechanical debridement and optimal plaque control for successful nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy.