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.

A longitudinal analysis of the impact of nonsurgical and surgical treatment of peri-implantitis upon clinical parameters and implant stability quotient values. A 2-3-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, the aim was to investigate the medium- to long-term impact of peri-implantitis treatment upon clinical parameters and implant stability quotient values and to ascertain if magnetic resonance frequency analysis can be used as a diagnostic tool to demonstrate postoperative healing following treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of n = 26 patients (n = 86 implants) diagnosed with peri-implantitis were recruited for this prospective cohort study and four different treatment modalities were used. Baseline measurements of a number of clinical parameters as well as implant stability measurements in the form of ISQ were recorded. These measurements were repeated at 6, 12, and 24-36 months following treatment. Analysis of variance was performed for all implants treated as well as separately for each treatment modality. A regression model was also used to determine factors affecting ISQ measurements over time. RESULTS: Treatment of peri-implantitis resulted in significant improvements of both average PPDs and BOP (p < .0001 and p < .01). ISQ values marginally improved initially for all treatment modalities, but improvement was only maintained for 2-3 years in treatment modalities I (+1.28), III (+1.49), and IV (+2.92). There was a statistically significant negative linear correlation between average PPD and the ISQ values recorded both at baseline (r = -.618, p < 0.0001) and at 2/3 years (r = -.604, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Over the 2-3-year follow-up period, all four treatment modalities led to improved clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters but implant stability posttreatment, as indicated by the fact that the recorded ISQ scores remained stable. As a result, use of MRFA as an adjunct to the traditionally used periodontal and radiographic tools for the evaluation of postoperative implant stability following the treatment of peri-implant disease cannot be recommended.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of a combined surgery approach to treat peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant infra-bony defects are difficult to treat, and data on the management of peri-implantitis are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a combined surgical approach to manage peri-implantitis: implantoplasty with xenogeneic bone grafting and a concentrated growth factor membrane. Two independent examiners analysed the medical records and radiographs taken before surgery and at the last follow-up. Data were analysed at the implant level; some patient-level data (age, sex, smoking habit) were also considered. Linear regression analysis with generalized estimating equations (GEE) was used to explore the effect of variables of interest (including marginal bone level (MBL)) on implantitis treatment success and resolution rates. The effect of the prosthesis type on postoperative clinical and radiographic parameters was also explored by GEE, with adjustment for age, sex, tooth site, location, follow-up duration, and implant length (model IV including all). Thirty patients with 72 implants were investigated. The implant survival rate was 100% over a mean observation period of 3.3 years (range 2-11 years). The treatment success rate (bone loss <0.5 mm, no bleeding on probing (BOP), no suppuration, probing depth (PD) < 5 mm) was higher in females than males (50% vs 19.0%; P = 0.008). At the last postoperative follow-up, the MBL (1.51 ± 1.07 vs 4.01 ± 1.13 mm), PD (3.61 ± 0.84 vs 6.54 ± 1.01 mm), and BOP (23.38 ± 23.18% vs 79.17 ± 15.51%) were significantly reduced when compared to pre-surgery values (all P < 0.001). Furthermore, a significantly higher PD reduction (ß = -1.10 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.97 to -0.23 mm, P = 0.014) was observed for implants with a single crown than a full-arch prosthesis (GEE model IV). Preliminary clinical and radiographic data indicate that implantoplasty in combination with surgery could be an effective treatment option for peri-implantitis.

Long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis - A retrospective study.

AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes and prognostic factors of non-reconstructive surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-nine patients (267 implants) were surgically treated for peri-implantitis and followed for an average of 7.0 (SD: 3.6) years. The primary outcome was implant loss. Additional bone loss and surgical retreatment were secondary outcomes. Patient/implant characteristics, as well as clinical and radiographic parameters collected prior to initial surgery, were evaluated as potential predictors of implant loss. Flexible parametric survival models using restricted cubic spline functions were used; 5- and 10-year predicted rates of implant loss were calculated according to different scenarios. RESULTS: Fifty-three implants (19.9%) in 35 patients (23.5%) were lost during the observation period. Implant loss occurred after a mean period of 4.4 (SD: 3.0) years and was predicted by implant surface characteristics (modified surface; HR 4.5), implant length (HR 0.8 by mm), suppuration at baseline (HR 2.7) and disease severity (baseline bone loss: HR 1.2 by mm). Estimates of 5- and 10-year implant loss ranged from 1% (best prognostic scenario; initial bone loss <40% of implant length, turned implant surface and absence of suppuration on probing (SoP)) to 63% (worst prognostic scenario; initial bone loss ≥60% of implant length, modified implant surface and SoP) and from 3% to 89%, respectively. Surgical retreatment was performed at 65 implants (24.3%) in 36 patients (24.2%) after a mean time period of 4.5 (3.1) years. In all, 59.5% of implants showed additional bone loss, were surgically retreated or lost. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence of disease is common following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The strongest predictor for implant loss was implant surface characteristics. Implant length as well as suppuration and disease severity at baseline were also relevant factors.

Stability of peri-implantitis surgical reconstructive therapy-a (> 2 years) follow-up of a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: This follow-up study aimed to report the 24- and 30-month outcomes of a cohort previously enrolled in a randomized clinical trial on surgical reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis. METHODS: Twenty-four patients were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with surgical reconstructive therapy with or without the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser. Within-group and between-group comparisons were tested with mixed model with repeated measures. RESULTS: Regarding peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) reduction (control vs. laser test group) between 6 months (- 1.85 vs. - 2.65 mm) and 30 months (- 1.84 vs. - 3.04 mm), the laser group showed statistically significant changes but not the control group. In terms of radiographic marginal bone loss (RMBL) at 6 months (- 1.1 vs. - 1.46 mm) to 24 months (- 1.96 vs. - 2.82 mm), both groups showed statistical difference compared to baseline. The six explanted implants all were featured by severe peri-implantitis and mostly with no or limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm) at baseline and membrane exposure after surgery. Among the 15 retained cases, eight cases achieved more than 50% peri-implant bone level gain. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation and follow-up time frame of this trial, the outcome of the surgical reconstructive therapy sustained or improved in most of the cases. However, 25% of the implants with severe peri-implantitis failed 2 years after the surgical reconstructive therapy. The use of Er:YAG laser favors PPD reduction in the longer term up to 30 months. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Longer-term follow-up on reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis revealed sustained or improved stability in certain cases, but the survival of implants with severe peri-implantitis has its limitation, especially when there is limited keratinized tissue (< 2 mm or no KT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT03127228 and HUM00160290.

Decontamination and Repair Protocol Promotes Positive Outcomes in Implants Affected by Peri-implantitis: A Human Case Series.

This study assessed the effectiveness and predictability of a readily available protocol to treat peri-implantitis utilizing mechanical debridement, chemical antiseptic surface detoxification, and osseous grafting. Nine patients (7 women, 2 men; mean age: 56.5 years) with 15 implants with peri-implantitis were included. Pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and standardized digital periapical radiographic measurements were taken. Surgical flaps were elevated, and the implant threads were cleaned with a plastic curette. Chemical decontamination was performed by scrubbing solutions of 0.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) and 1.5% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) around the exposed implant using cotton pellets. Bony defects were filled with a 50/50 mixture of bovine hydroxyapatite and nanocrystalline calcium sulfate (CaSO4). A porcine collagen membrane was placed over the grafted bony defect. Follow-up appointments were scheduled 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 1 year posttreatment. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed and compared. At baseline, PPD ranged from 5 to 7.5 mm (mean: 6 ± 0.7 mm). At 12 months, PPD ranged from 1.5 to 4.2 mm (mean: 2.5 ± 0.8 mm). The mean PPD reduction of 3.6 mm (59.2%) was statistically significant (P < .001). The number of bleeding sites around each test implant decreased significantly from 4 to 0.4 sites between baseline and 12 months (P < .001). Mean radiographic bone loss decreased from 4.8 ± 1.3 mm to 2.7 ± 1.2 mm (P < .001). The proposed method of mechanical decontamination, chemical detoxification, and bone regeneration is clinically effective and reproducible. Clinical peri-implant parameters and radiographic bone levels were improved and maintained their stability for 1 year using this peri-implantitis treatment protocol.

Efficacy of implantoplasty in management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review.

Aim: Peri-implantitis causes progressive loss of the supporting bony structure around the dental implant. Implantoplasty mechanically removes contaminated threads to achieve smoother implant surface thus reducing the bacterial load enabling fibroblastic growth to stimulate the healing effect. This Systematic review is done to appraise the outcome of implantoplasty on surface quality of Implant (roughness), biocompatibility of implants in peri-implantitis cases. Settings and Design: The Settings of the studies are major online databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online library. The design of the current study is systematic review of published qualitative studies. Materials and Method: 37 articles were identified for the present review and systematic electronic literature search was done from August 2022 to January 2023, via PubMed, Scopus, Medline, and The Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases [PRISMA guidelines]. In vitro studies on implantoplasty for peri-implantitis were included for the review. 2 examiners independently selected based on the inclusion criteria and recorded the necessary data. Statistical Analysis Used: Risk of bias assessment tool was evaluated with Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) and screened based on Selection, Comparability, and Outcome with the following categories: - maximum of 4, 2 and 4 points respectively. The observations were tabulated and analysed. Results: Among the 8 selected studies, two studies reported no statistical difference between implantoplasty and control, one study proposed carbide burs were better than diamond burs, another study also suggested multilaminar burs were better than diamond and carbide. The Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) score for the quality of the included studies ranged from 6 to 8. Two of the studies had score of 6 points, eight had 7 points and one had 8 points. Conclusion: Implantoplasty has been recommended as an efficacious treatment protocol for peri-implantitis that helps to diminish the inflammation and accompanied by a high success rate.

Subcrestal Implantoplasty for Treating Peri-implantitis With Regenerative Care-How Deep Should Treatment Go?

Used to treat implants failing due to peri-implantitis, implantoplasty has traditionally been performed in conjunction with a resective approach or to smooth the portion of the dental implant above the bone to facilitate oral hygiene efforts. This article demonstrates the use of implantoplasty to decontaminate the implant surface both above and below the crest of bone in an attempt to reosseointegrate the failing implant; to the authors' knowledge this is the first time in the literature that implantoplasty was used in this manner and demonstrated potential regenerative efficacy.

A conceptual review on reconstructive peri-implantitis therapy: Challenges and opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: The current strategies to reconstruct lost peri-implant tissues due to the disease have been largely unpredictable. The aim of this conceptual review is to discuss relevant biological and biomechanical challenges of applying reconstructive means to treat peri-implantitis. Additionally, opportunities to improve treatment predictability are presented. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A narrative review was conducted to fulfill the aim. RESULTS: The four interrelated negative conditions hampering effective reconstruction are: inferior tissue perfusion, unfavorable bone topography, ineffective surface treatment, and unstable wound. First, peri-implant tissues resemble scars with reduced cellularity and vascularity, coupled with the absence of the periodontal ligament plexuses and the avascular implant and biomaterials, maintaining primary closure is a challenge, which is critical for regeneration. Second, defect morphology and bone topography surrounding implants determine the reconstructive potential. Unfortunately, noncontained defects are frequently encountered, with a combination of suprabony (horizontal bone loss) and infrabony (vertical usually involving circumferential bone loss) defects. Third, current attempts for implant surface decontamination are insufficient due to inaccessible macrostructure and rough surfaces in the micro-scale. Histologic evaluation has shown bacteria aggregation and calcified deposits around implants. Lastly, wound stability is difficult to achieve due to inherent soft tissue biomechanical quality and quantity deficiencies and mobile bone particulates. Opportunities to tackle the abovementioned challenges include the use of novel imaging technologies, such as high-frequency dental ultrasound and laser speckle imaging to evaluate tissue perfusion, soft tissue quality/quantity, and bone topography pre-surgically. The use of the operating microscope could allow better visualization and removal of etiologic factors. Strategies to improve soft tissue quality may include preoperative control of soft tissue inflammation and the potential use of biologics. Methods such as fixation to stabilize the biomaterials could be beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: A more nuanced understanding of the current challenges and opportunities can lead to more effective preoperative and postoperative care protocols, ultimately improving the success rate of reconstructive procedures.

Lateral Peri-Implantitis: Successful Management via Guided Bone Regeneration at Mandibular First Molar Implant.

Infections occurring around implants are divided into marginal peri-implantitis and retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI). Marginal peri-implantitis starts in the crestal bone and progresses to the apical portion, and RPI starts in the apical bone and progresses to the coronal portion. However, lateral peri-implantitis (LPI) occurring on the side of the implant body has not yet been reported, and the cause is unclear. This 63-year-old male patient is a case of unusual bone resorption that occurred in the lateral portion of the implant body 26 months after lateral bone augmentation. The origin of LPI was an infection at the site of laterally augmented bone. Rather than implant removal, this report demonstrates an alternative treatment option of guided bone regeneration after the enucleation and detoxification of the implant surface with successful clinical and radiographic results for 2 years.

Role of Keratinized Tissue on the Management of Peri-implantitis: A Case Report.

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition that involves the loss of attachment and support around dental implants. In this case report, a middle-aged woman presented with two implants in the mandibular right quadrant that were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. The patient also had tenderness around the implants and reported sensitivity when performing oral hygiene procedures. Surgical treatment comprised a free gingival graft to augment the keratinized tissue width around the implants, followed by a second procedure of implantoplasty and surface decontamination. The outcome showed radiographic resolution of the peri-implant defect around the premolar implant with a marked increase of keratinized tissue (> 4 mm) around both implants after 1 year of follow up. On a patient level, significantly reduced sensitivity around the implants and better home care were reported. This case report showed that the increase of keratinized tissue may benefit the clinical and patient outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment in terms of decreased probing depths, absence of inflammation, and improved radiographic crestal stability. The combined correction of both hard and soft tissue defects around peri-implantitis lesions may facilitate treatment success and help maintain peri-implant stability.

Application of Immediate Implant Placement Techniques in Peri-implantitis Modeling.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the use of immediate implant placement technique in peri-implantitis modeling, shorten the modeling period, and obtain similar effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty rats were divided into 4 groups: immediate placement (IP), delayed placement (DP), IP-ligation (IP-L) and DP-ligation (DP-L). In the DP and DP-L groups, implants were placed 4 weeks after tooth extraction. In the IP and IP-L groups, implants were placed immediately. Four weeks later, the implants were ligated to induce peri-implantitis in the DP-L and IP-L groups. RESULTS: Nine implants were lost (3 in the IP-L and 2 each in the IP, DP, and DP-L group). The bone level decreased after ligation, and the buccal and lingual bone levels were lower in IP-L versus DP-L. The implant pullout strength was decreased after ligation. Micro-CT showed bone parameters were decreased after ligation, and the percent bone volume was higher in IP versus DP. Histology showed that the percent of CD4 + cells and IL-17 + cells was increased after ligation and higher in IP-L versus DP-L. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully introduced immediate implant placement into the modeling of peri-implantitis and observed similar bone resorption and more soft tissue inflammation in a shorter time.

Defect angle as prognostic indicator in the reconstructive therapy of peri-implantitis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the influence of the characteristics of bone defects caused by peri-implantitis on the clinical resolution and radiographic bone gain following reconstructive surgery. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. Periapical x-rays of bone defects, caused by peri-implantitis exhibiting intrabony component, were analyzed at baseline and 12-month follow-up after reconstructive surgery. Therapy consisted of anti-infective therapy along with a mixture of allografts with or without a collagen barrier membrane. The association of defect configuration, defect angle (DA), defect width (DW), and baseline marginal bone level (MBL) with clinical resolution (based on a prior defined composite criteria) and radiographic bone gain was correlated by means of generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Overall, 33 patients with a total of 48 implants exhibiting peri-implantitis were included. None of the evaluated variables yielded statistical significance with disease resolution. Defect configuration demonstrated statistical significance when compared to class 1B and 3B, favoring radiographic bone gain for the former (p = 0.005). DW and MBL did not demonstrate statistical significance with radiographic bone gain. On the contrary, DA exhibited strong statistical significance with bone gain (p < 0.001) in the simple and multiple logistic regression analyses. Mean DA reported in this study was 40°, and this resulted in 1.85 mm radiographic bone gain. To achieve ≥1 mm of bone gain, DA must be <57°, while to attain ≥2 mm of bone gain, DA must be <30°. CONCLUSION: Baseline DA of peri-implantitis intrabony components predicts radiographic bone gain in reconstructive therapy (NCT05282667-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment and randomization).

Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri-implantitis defects. A network meta-analysis.

Guided bone regeneration (GBR) at peri-implantitis-related bone defects involves the placement of bone-filler particles in the intrabony defects and the application of a barrier membrane. The efficacy of different GBR-supported reconstructive measures as well as their potential superiority compared to non-GBR-supported treatment strategies for bone defects at peri-implantitis sites, however, remains unclear. Therefore, this analysis was designed to evaluate the long-term (≥12 months) clinical efficacy of GBR-supported reconstructive surgical therapy for peri-implantitis-related bone defects. In terms of resolving inflammation, the implementation of GBR protocols applying xenogenic bone substitutes yielded a higher reduction of bleeding on probing and probing depth value compared to the GBR protocol applying autogenous bone. Furthermore, for the changes in bleeding on probing and probing depths, GBR approaches using xenogenic bone showed superiority over the non-GBR treatments. Xenogenic bone with or without a barrier membrane was associated with improved radiographic bone levels and less soft tissue recession compared to the use of a GBR protocol implementing autogenous bone. Nonetheless, when interpreting this findings, the limited number of available studies with low to serious risk of bias and the short follow-up periods limited to 12 months should be considered.

Surface decontamination of explanted peri-implantitis-affected implants.

AIM: The present study aimed at evaluating the effect of air-polishing (AP) and a combination of AP and alkaline electrolysed water (AEW) in surface decontamination of explanted peri-implantitis-affected implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with 34 dental implants scheduled for explantation due to severe peri-implantitis were included. Following implant removal, the apical part of each implant was embedded in acrylic blocks. Implants were randomly allocated to surface decontamination using AP with or without AEW. Four implants were left untreated and used as negative controls. Specimens were analysed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Area of residual bacteria was the primary outcome. RESULTS: SEM analysis revealed that both treatment protocols were effective in biofilm removal and only small proportions of target areas of the implants showed residual bacterial or mineralized deposits. Although differences between the treatment protocols were small, implant thread loci (top/flank/valley), zones of the implant (apical/middle/coronal), implant surface characteristics and gender influenced the results. In addition, EDS analysis showed that zones influenced the atomic% of carbon and calcium and that implant surface characteristics affected the atomic% of titanium. CONCLUSIONS: AP, with or without AEW, is an effective method in removing biofilm from peri-implantitis-affected implants.

Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence: A Web-Based Implant Failure and Peri-implantitis Prediction Model for Clinicians.

PURPOSE: To develop a machine learning model that can predict dental implant failure and peri-implantitis as a tool for maximizing implant success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used a supervised learning model to retrospectively analyze 398 unique patients receiving a total of 942 dental implants presenting at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center from 2006 to 2013. Logistic regression, random forest classifiers, support vector machines, and ensemble techniques were employed to analyze this dataset. RESULTS: The random forest model possessed the highest predictive performance on test sets, with receiver operating characteristic area under curves (ROC AUC) of 0.872 and 0.840 for dental implant failures and peri-implantitis, respectively. The five most important features correlating with implant failure were amount of local anesthetic, implant length, implant diameter, use of preoperative antibiotics, and frequency of hygiene visits. The five most important features correlating with peri-implantitis were implant length, implant diameter, use of preoperative antibiotics, frequency of hygiene visits, and presence of diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the ability of machine learning models to assess demographics, medical history, and surgical plans, as well as the influence of these factors on dental implant failure and peri-implantitis. This model may serve as a resource for clinicians in the treatment of dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2023;38:576-582. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9852.

Unraveling the effectiveness of antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are the most effective adjuncts in the treatment of periodontitis. However, the benefits of these agents in treating peri-implantitis are still debatable and demand further analysis. PURPOSE: The aim of this review was to critically appraise the literature on the use of antibiotics to treat peri-implantitis, with the ultimate goal of supporting evidence-based clinical recommendations, defining gaps in knowledge and guiding future studies on this topic. METHODS: A systematized literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on patients with peri-implantitis treated by mechanical debridement-only or with adjunctive use of local or systemic antibiotics. Clinical and microbiological data were extracted from the RCTs included. The findings were critically reviewed, interpreted, and discussed. An overview of antibiotic-loaded dental implant materials in peri-implantitis treatment was also provided. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs testing local/systemic antibiotics were included. Although not always statistically significant, all antibiotic-treated groups had greater reductions in mean PD than those treated by mechanical debridement-only. The only clinically relevant antibiotic protocol supported by one RCT with low risk of bias and long-lasting benefits was systemic metronidazole (MTZ). Studies using ultrasonic debridement reported better outcomes. No RCTs to date have tested MTZ-only or with amoxicillin (AMX) as adjuncts to open-flap implant debridement. In vitro/animal studies suggested that biomaterials with antimicrobial properties are promising to treat peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: There are insufficient data to support a particular evidence-based antibiotic protocol to treat peri-implantitis using surgical or nonsurgical therapy, but some conclusions may be drawn. Systemic MTZ adjunct to ultrasonic debridement is an effective protocol to improve the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment. Future studies should assess the clinical and microbiological effects of MTZ and MTZ + AMX as adjuncts to optimal nonsurgical implant decontamination protocols or open-flap debridement. In addition, new locally delivered drugs and antibiotic-loaded surfaces should be assessed by RCTs.

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.

Efficacy of adjunctive measures in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review.

AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of patient-performed or administered adjunctive measures to non-surgical peri-implantitis therapy in terms of probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized and controlled clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow-up were searched in three databases. Secondary outcomes included implant loss, disease resolution, recurrence of peri-implantitis, need of re-treatment, changes in marginal bone levels, patient-reported outcomes and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 567 titles, 10 publications, reporting 9 investigations, were included. Three types of adjunctive measures were found (local/systemic antimicrobials and probiotics). Four studies evaluated the effects of local antimicrobials (i.e., minocycline microspheres, chlorhexidine chips or a metronidazole + amoxicillin gel), three studies evaluated systemic antimicrobials (either amoxicillin + metronidazole or metronidazole alone) and two studies evaluated probiotics (Lactobacillus reuteri strains). The addition of local antimicrobials led to modest improvements in PD reduction. Systemic antimicrobials showed significantly greater reductions in PD and BoP, especially at initially deep sites (PD > 6 mm). Due to the large heterogeneity among included studies, no meta-analyses were performed. CONCLUSIONS: Different adjunctive measures in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis have different impact in terms of PD and BoP reductions. Improved PD reductions result after the use of systemic antimicrobials, and to a lesser extent, after the use of local antimicrobials.

Bone regeneration as treatment of peri-implant disease: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Analysis of the 3-dimensional implant position, the bone defect morphology, and the soft tissue situation guides the decision to preserve or to remove an implant with a severe peri-implantitis lesion. The aim of this narrative review was to analyze and to comprehensively illustrate the treatment options focusing on peri-implant bone regeneration in presence of severe peri-implant bone loss. METHODS: A database search was performed independently by the two reviewers to identify case reports, case series, cohort, retrospective, and prospective studies about peri-implant bone regeneration with a follow-up of at least 6 months. Of the 344 studies issued during the database analysis, 96 publications were selected by the authors for this review. RESULTS: Deproteinized bovine bone mineral remains the best documented material for defect regeneration in peri-implantitis in combination with or without a barrier membrane. While studies using autogenous bone in peri-implantitis therapy are rarely found, they do report favorable potential of vertical bone regeneration. Moreover, while membranes are an inherent part of the guided bone regeneration, a 5-year follow-up study demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements with and without a membrane. The administration of systemic antibiotics is frequently performed in clinical studies observing regenerative surgical peri-implantitis therapy, but the analysis of the literature does not support a positive effect of this medication. Most studies for regenerative peri-implantitis surgery recommend the removal of the prosthetic rehabilitation and the use a marginal incision with a full-thickness access flap elevation. This allows for a good overview for regenerative procedures with a certain risk of wound dehiscences and incomplete regeneration. An alternative approach referring to the poncho technique may reduce the risk of dehiscence. The effectiveness of implant surface decontamination might have an impact on peri-implant bone regeneration without any clinical superiority of a certain technique. CONCLUSION: The available literature reveals that the success of peri-implantitis therapy is limited to the reduction of bleeding on probing, the improvement of the peri-implant probing depth and a small amount of vertical defect fill. On this basis, no specific recommendations for bone regeneration in surgical peri-implantitis therapy can be made. Innovative approaches for flap design, surface decontamination, bone defect grafting material, and soft tissue augmentation should be followed closely to find advanced techniques for favorable peri-implant bone augmentation.