Do systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole during the non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment phase prevent the need for future surgical treatment? A retrospective long-term cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this retrospective long-term follow-up of a 3-month RCT was to assess whether non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive systemic antibiotics influenced the need for additional surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in an aftercare programme following non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment, with or without systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole, were analysed. Data had previously been collected pre-treatment (T0) and 3 months after treatment (T1) and were additionally collected during subsequent aftercare visits, until the final assessment (T2). Primary outcome was the need for additional surgical peri-implantitis therapy during the aftercare programme, analysed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Secondary outcomes involved clinical parameters, assessed using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (22 AB- group, 23 AB+ group) were included. The mean follow-up time between T1 and T2 was 35.9 months (SD = 21.0). 73.9% of the AB+ group and 50.0% of the AB- group did not receive additional surgical therapy (log-rank test, p = .110). The adjusted Cox regression model did not provide a significant result for antibiotics (ß = .441, 95% CI = 0.159-1.220, p = .115). Univariable regression analysis highlighted the influence of baseline peri-implant pocket depth on the need for surgical treatment (ß = 1.446, 95% CI = 1.035-2.020, p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole administered during non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment do not seem to prevent the need for additional surgical therapy in the long term, during a structured aftercare programme.

The Peri-Implant Microbiome-A Possible Factor Determining the Success of Surgical Peri-Implantitis Treatment?

The objective was to assess the effect of peri-implantitis surgery on the peri-implant microbiome with a follow-up of one year. A total of 25 peri-implantitis patients in whom non-surgical treatment has failed to solve peri-implantitis underwent resective surgical treatment. Their peri-implant pockets were sampled prior to surgical treatment (T0) and one year post treatment (T12). The natural dentition was sampled to analyse similarities and differences with the peri-implantitis samples. Treatment success was recorded. The change in microbial relative abundance levels was evaluated. The microbiota was analysed by sequencing the amplified V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes. Sequence data were binned to amplicon sequence variants that were assigned to bacterial genera. Group differences were analysed using principal coordinate analysis, Wilcoxon signed rank tests, and t-tests. Beta diversity analyses reported a significant separation between peri-implantitis and natural dentition samples on T0 and T12, along with significant separations between successfully and non-successfully treated patients. Eubacterium was significantly lower on T12 compared to T0 for the peri-implantitis samples. Treponema and Eubacterium abundance levels were significantly lower in patients with treatment success on T0 and T12 versus no treatment success. Therefore, lower baseline levels of Treponema and Eubacterium seem to be associated with treatment success of peri-implantitis surgery. This study might aid clinicians in determining which peri-implantitis cases might be suitable for treatment and give a prognosis with regard to treatment success.

Efficacy of chemical approaches for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with sub-marginal instrumentation, in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of sub-marginal instrumentation combined with chemical surface decontamination in comparison with sub-marginal instrumentation with or without placebo, in terms of changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing, as reported in prospective randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, or prospective cohort studies, with a minimum of 6-month "follow-up". MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Ovid Medline, and The Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL) for articles published until March 2022. Data addressing the primary and secondary outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: The search gave 2033 results of which 3 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two studies investigated the use of anti-microbial photodynamic therapy as adjunct to sub-marginal instrumentation and the third study assessed the adjunctive use of a desiccant material. A meta-analysis was not deemed meaningful because of the large heterogeneity among the studies. All three studies showed favourable results in terms of PD reduction for chemical surface decontamination over control approaches, but were inconsistent or showed no differences for the other outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive chemical approaches for implant surface decontamination may offer an advantage over sub-marginal instrumentation alone, in terms of improved PD.

Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with implant surface cleansing using saline during the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: During a resective surgical intervention, implant surfaces were randomly treated with either air polishing (test group n = 26 patients/53 implants) or saline-soaked cotton gauzes (control group n = 31 patients/ 40 implants). Primary outcome was change in mean bleeding on probing (BoP) from baseline to 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were changes in mean suppuration on probing (SoP), plaque score (Plq), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), periodontal full-mouth scores (PFMS), and levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens. Clinical and radiographical parameters were analyzed using multilevel regression analyses. Microbiological outcomes were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: No differences between the test and control group were found for BoP over 12 months of follow-up, nor for the secondary parameters Plq, PPD, and MBL. Between both groups, a significant difference was found for the levels of SoP (p = 0.035). No significant effect on microbiological levels was found. A total number of 6 implants were lost in the test group and 10 in the control group. At 1-year follow-up, a successful treatment outcome (PPD<5 mm, max 1 out of 6 sites BoP, no suppuration and no progressive bone loss >0.5 mm) was achieved for a total of 18 implants (19.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing as implant surface cleansing method was not more effective than saline during resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. Both therapies resulted in low treatment success. TRIAL REGISTRY: https://www.trialregister.nl/ Identifier: NL8621.

Systemic antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A single-blind RCT.

AIM: The aim of this single-blind RCT was to evaluate the adjunctive clinical and microbiological effect of systemic amoxicillin (AMX) plus metronidazole (MTZ) to non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients (N = 62) with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to receive full-mouth mechanical debridement and decontamination and use of chlorhexidine (control group) or combined with antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ (test group). Primary outcome was change in bleeding score from baseline (T0 ) to 3-month follow-up (T3 ). Secondary parameters were plaque, suppuration, PPD, CAL, bone level, microbiology, adverse events and need for additional surgery. Data were analysed with linear multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: 57 patients with 122 implants completed 3-month follow-up. Both groups showed major clinical improvements at T3 in both peri-implant and periodontal parameters. However, no significant differences were observed between both groups for any of the primary or secondary parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic antibiotic therapy of AMX/MTZ does not improve clinical and microbiological outcomes of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment and should not be routinely recommended. Although complete disease resolution may be difficult to achieve, meticulously performed full-mouth non-surgical treatment, achieving a high level of daily oral hygiene and healthy periodontal tissues, can significantly improve the starting position of the subsequent (surgical) peri-implantitis treatment phase.

Erythritol airpolishing in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare erythritol air polishing with piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty patients (n = 139 implants) with peri-implantitis (probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥5 mm, marginal bone loss (MBL) ≥2 mm as compared to bone level at implant placement, bleeding, and/or suppuration on probing (BoP/SoP)) were randomly allocated to air polishing or ultrasonic treatment. The primary outcome was mean BoP (%) at 3 months after therapy (T3). Secondary outcomes were mean SoP (%), plaque score (Plq) (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), full mouth periodontal scores (FMPS) (%), levels of 8 classical periodontal pathogens, and treatment pain/discomfort (Visual Analog Scale, VAS). Patients who were considered successful at T3 were additionally assessed at 6, 9, and 12 months. Differences between both groups were analyzed using multilevel statistics. RESULTS: Three months after therapy, no significant difference in mean BoP (%) between the air polishing and ultrasonic therapy was found (crude analysis ß (95% CI) -0.037 (-0.147; 0.073), p = .380). Neither secondary outcomes SoP (%), Plq (%), PPD (mm), MBL (mm), FMPS (%), and periodontal pathogens showed significant differences. Treatment pain/discomfort was low in both groups (VAS score airpolishing group 2.1 (±1.9), ultrasonic 2.6 (±1.9); p = .222). All successfully treated patients at T3 (18.4%) were still considered successful at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Erythritol air polishing seems as effective as piezoelectric ultrasonic scaling in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, in terms of clinical, radiographical, and microbiological parameters. However, neither of the proposed therapies effectively resolved peri-implantitis. Hence, the majority of patients required further surgical treatment.

Biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid of healthy implants, untreated and non-surgically treated implants with peri-implantitis.

AIM: To compare biomarker levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) of healthy implants with levels in PICF of implants with peri-implantitis (before and after non-surgical treatment). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Samples were taken from 20 healthy implants (n = 17 patients) and from 20 implants with peri-implantitis (n = 19 patients) before and 3 months after non-surgical treatment using the Airflow Master Piezon® (EMS). A Luminex™ assay was used to evaluate pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-6 and G-CSF, collagen degradation enzyme MMP-8, chemokines MCP-1 & MIP-1α/CCL3, bone markers OPG and sRANKL and interferon-γ. Clinical and radiographical characteristics were assessed. A Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank test analysed between- and within-group differences. RESULTS: IL-1ß and MMP-8 levels were found significantly elevated in implants with peri-implantitis (p = .007; p = <.001, respectively). No difference in levels of TNF-α, IL-6, MCP-1 and MIP-1α/CCL3, OPG and G-CSF between healthy and diseased implants was found. Levels of sRANKL and INF-γ were under the level of detection. None of the biomarker levels improved after non-surgical therapy, and levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 remained high. CONCLUSION: Implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis have higher levels of IL-1ß and MMP-8 in PICF compared to healthy implants. Non-surgical therapy did not influence the inflammatory immune response.

Non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment using a pocket irrigator device; clinical, microbiological, radiographical and patient-centred outcomes-A pilot study.

AIM: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to assess the effect of a pocket irrigator/evacuator device (IED) in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In total 24 patients having 38 implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included in this study. Peri-implant pockets were irrigated six times in three consecutive weeks. The primary outcome was bleeding on probing (BoP). Secondary outcome parameters included plaque index (Pl), suppuration on probing (SoP), probing pocket depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), presence and numbers of periodontal pathogens. Parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months after the last treatment. Treatment pain perception was scored using the visual analog scale (VAS) after the first and last treatment. RESULTS: At 3 months, IED treatment revealed significant reduction of peri-implant BoP (71% [±20] vs 57% [±28] [P = .014]) and peri-implant plaque scores (10 [±14] to 5 [±9] [P = .039] [T0 vs T3 respectively]). Significant reduction in mean peri-implant PPD from 4.92 mm (SD ± 1.28) to 4.66 mm (SD ± 1.35) (P = .041) was observed. In addition, a reduction in VAS pain score between the first and the last (6th) treatment was found (P = .039). No reduction in SoP (P = .088) was found. No changes in mean periodontal full mouth plaque, BOP, SOP and PPD levels, MBL and microbiological outcomes were found. CONCLUSION: Beneficial clinical effects in terms of BoP, PPD and PI were found at 3 months after IED treatment. However, the IED does not seem to effectively treat peri-implantitis in terms of disease resolution.

Implant decontamination with phosphoric acid during surgical peri-implantitis treatment: a RCT.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is known as an infectious disease that affects the peri-implant soft and hard tissue. Today, scientific literature provides very little evidence for an effective intervention protocol for treatment of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the microbiological and clinical effectiveness of phosphoric acid as a decontaminating agent of the implant surface during surgical peri-implantitis treatment. METHODS: Peri-implantitis lesions were treated with resective surgical treatment aimed at peri-implant granulation tissue removal, bone recontouring, and pocket elimination. Fifty-three implant surfaces in 28 patients were mechanically cleaned and treated with either 35% phosphoric etching gel (test group) or sterile saline (control group). Microbiological samples were obtained during surgery; clinical parameters were recorded at baseline and at 3 months after treatment. Data were analyzed using multi-variable linear regression analysis and multilevel statistics. RESULTS: Significant immediate reductions in total anaerobic bacterial counts on the implant surface were found in both groups. Immediate reduction was greater when phosphoric acid was used. The difference in log-transformed mean anaerobic counts between both procedures was not statistical significant (p = 0.108), but there were significantly less culture-positive implants after the decontamination procedure in the phosphoric acid group (p = 0.042). At 3 months post-surgery, 75% of the implants in the control group and 63.3% of the implants in the test group showed disease resolution. However, no significant differences in clinical and microbiological outcomes between both groups were found. CONCLUSIONS: The application of 35% phosphoric acid after mechanical debridement is superior to mechanical debridement combined with sterile saline rinsing for decontamination of the implant surface during surgical peri-implantitis treatment. However, phosphoric acid as implant surface decontaminant does not seem to enhance clinical outcomes on a 3-month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands National Trial Register, NTR5185 (www.trialregister.nl).

Prognostic indicators for surgical peri-implantitis treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Objective of this study was to identify prognostic indicators for the outcome of resective peri-implantitis treatment, by an analysis of the pooled data of two previously conducted randomized controlled trials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data of 74 patients with peri-implantitis (187 implants) who had received resective surgical treatment were available. Primary outcome variable was failure of peri-implantitis treatment after 12 months. Multilevel univariable and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of various potentially prognostic indicators on the primary outcome. RESULTS: Peri-implantitis treatment was unsuccessful in 106 implants (57%) and 48 patients (67%) after 12 months. In the multiple regression analysis, the variables "order of inclusion" (P = 0.016) and mean bone loss at baseline (P = 0.030) were significant prognostic indicators for treatment failure. To eliminate the effect of "order of inclusion," post hoc analyses were carried out in a subgroup of patients. The univariable post hoc analysis showed a significant association for smoking (P = 0.015), maximum pocket depth at baseline (P = 0.073), mean bone loss at baseline (P = 0.003), and presence of plaque (P = 0.100). In the multiple regression post hoc analysis, only the variables smoking (P = 0.044) and mean bone loss (P = 0.043) remained statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The outcome of surgical peri-implantitis treatment is influenced by the experience of the surgical team with the surgical procedure. The observed learning effect has consequences for clinical practice and for conducting and interpreting clinical trials on peri-implantitis treatment. Other prognostic indicators are amount of peri-implant bone loss at baseline and smoking, and to a lesser extent, probing pocket depth at baseline and presence of plaque during follow-up. Early diagnosis of peri-implantitis and control of behavioral factors are crucial in achieving peri-implantitis treatment success.

Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in edentulous patients with an implant-retained mandibular overdenture during a 10-year follow-up period.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this sub-analysis of two prospective studies was to assess the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in fully edentulous patients with an implant-retained mandibular overdenture during a 10-year follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty edentulous patients with two endosseous implants to support a mandibular overdenture were available from two prospective studies. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed at 5 and 10 years of functional loading. Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were calculated at implant level and patient level following the Consensus of the Seventh European Workshop on Periodontology on peri-implant diseases. RESULTS: Incidence of peri-implant mucositis at patient level was 51.9% after 5 years of evaluation and 57.0% after 10 years. Incidence of peri-implantitis at patient level was 16.9% after 5 years of evaluation and 29.7% after 10 years. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis do occur in totally edentulous patients and incidence numbers are high.

Changes in oral microflora after full-mouth tooth extraction: a prospective cohort study.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of full-mouth tooth extraction on the oral microflora, with emphasis on the presence and load of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Porphyromonas gingivalis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adult patients (n = 30), with moderate to advanced periodontitis and scheduled for full-mouth tooth extraction, were consecutively selected. Prior to and 1 and 3 months after full-mouth tooth extraction saliva, tongue, buccal and gingival mucosa and subgingival plaque/prosthesis samples were obtained. Aerobic and anaerobic culture techniques and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) were employed for the detection of oral pathogens. RESULTS: Full-mouth tooth extraction resulted in reduction below detection level of A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis in 15 of 16 and 8 of 16 previously positive patients using culture techniques and qPCR, respectively. Those patients remaining qPCR positive showed a significant reduction in load of these bacteria. CONCLUSION: Full-mouth tooth extraction significantly changes the oral microflora. These changes include reduction of A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis, frequently to levels below detection threshold. In some patients, A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis can persist in the edentulous oral cavity up to 3 months after full-mouth tooth extraction.

Differences in peri-implant microflora between fully and partially edentulous patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The current evidence suggests that the oral microflora differs between individuals who are fully edentulous (FES) and those who are partially edentulous (PES). It is unknown whether this leads to differences in peri-implant microflora when implants are installed. The aim of the study is to compare the submucosal peri-implant microflora between FES and PES. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for publications up to September 1, 2012. To reduce methodologic variations, only studies reporting in the same article about the submucosal peri-implant microflora of FES and PES were selected. RESULTS: Eleven publications describing 10 studies were selected. Because of numerous differences among the selected studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six of 10 studies showed a significant difference in the composition of the submucosal peri-implant microflora in healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions between FES and PES, with the latter showing a potentially more pathogenic composition. However, microbiologic results were not unanimous among the studies. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy and peri-implant mucositis conditions, PES harbor a potentially more pathogenic peri-implant microflora than FES. The current data are insufficient for a clear conclusion regarding peri-implantitis cases. Overall, because of the lack of a meta-analysis, the variability in microbiologic outcomes and the limited number of studies available, the current evidence seems not to be robust.

Differences in peri-implant conditions between fully and partially edentulous subjects: a systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for publications up to January 1st 2012. Studies reporting on the bleeding tendency of the peri-implant mucosa and/or studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-five publications describing 46 studies were selected. One study described both FES and PES, and all other studies described either FES or PES. Subgroup analyses were performed according to dental status (fully/partially edentulous), follow-up time (≥5 years and ≥ 10 years) and study design (prospective/cross-sectional). FES harboured more plaque at their implants than PES. Modified bleeding index scores were significantly higher in FES, but no differences in bleeding on probing, implant loss and probing pocket depth were observed between FES and PES. No meta-analysis could be performed on prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Overall prevalence of peri-implantitis was 0-3.4% after 5 years and 5.8-16.9% after 10 years of implant evaluation. CONCLUSION: FES and PES show comparable implant survival rates. However, no conclusion can be drawn regarding differences in prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis between FES and PES.

Implant decontamination during surgical peri-implantitis treatment: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to study the effect of implant surface decontamination with chlorhexidine (CHX)/cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) on microbiological and clinical parameters. MATERIAL & METHODS: Thirty patients (79 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated with resective surgical treatment consisting of apically re-positioned flap, bone re-contouring and surface debridement and decontamination. Patients were randomly allocated to decontamination with 0.12% CHX + 0.05% CPC (test-group) or a placebo-solution (without CHX/CPC, placebo-group). Microbiological parameters were recorded during surgery; clinical and radiographical parameters were recorded before (pre-) treatment (baseline), and at 3, 6 and 12 months after treatment. RESULTS: Nine implants in two patients in the placebo-group were lost due to severe persisting peri-implantitis. Both decontamination procedures resulted in significant reductions of bacterial load on the implant surface, but the test-group showed a significantly greater reduction than the placebo-group (log 4.21 ± 1.89 versus log 2.77 ± 2.12, p = 0.006). Multilevel analysis showed no differences between both groups in the effect of the intervention on bleeding, suppuration, probing pocket depth and radiographical bone loss over time. CONCLUSION: Implant surface decontamination with 0.12% CHX + 0.05% CPC in resective surgical treatment of peri-implantitis leads to a greater immediate suppression of anaerobic bacteria on the implant surface than a placebo-solution, but does not lead to superior clinical results. The long-term microbiological effect remains unknown.