Periodontitis in patients with diabetes and its association with diabetes-related complications. A register-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between type 1 diabetes (T1D)/type 2 diabetes (T2D) and periodontitis and assess the influence of periodontitis on diabetes-related complications. DESIGN: Observational study; longitudinal analysis of register data. SETTING: Swedish primary care centres, hospitals and dental clinics reporting to nationwide healthcare registers (2010-2020). PARTICIPANTS: 28 801 individuals with T1D (13 022 women; mean age 42 years) and 57 839 individuals without diabetes (non-T1D; 26 271 women; mean age 43 years). 251 645 individuals with T2D (110 627 women; mean age 61 years) and 539 805 individuals without diabetes (non-T2D; 235 533 women; mean age 60 years). Diabetes and non-diabetes groups were matched for age, gender and county of residence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalent periodontitis, diabetes-related complications (retinopathy, albuminuria, stroke and ischaemic heart disease) and mortality. RESULTS: Periodontitis was more common among T2D (22%) than non-T2D (17%). Differences were larger in younger age groups (adjusted RR at age 30-39 years 1.92; 95% CI 1.81 to 2.03) and exacerbated by poor glycaemic control. Periodontitis prevalence was 13% in T1D and 11% in non-T1D; only the subgroup with poor glycaemic control was at higher risk for periodontitis. Periodontitis was associated with a higher incidence of retinopathy (T1D: HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.14; T2D: HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.10) and albuminuria (T1D: HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23; T2D: HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.11). Periodontitis was not associated with a higher risk for stroke, cardiovascular disease or higher mortality in T1D/T2D. CONCLUSIONS: The association between T2D and periodontitis was strong and exacerbated by poor glycaemic control. For T1D, the association to periodontitis was limited to subgroups with poor glycaemic control. Periodontitis contributed to an increased risk for retinopathy and albuminuria in T1D and T2D.

Favorable subgingival plaque microbiome shifts are associated with clinical treatment for peri-implant diseases.

We performed a longitudinal shotgun metagenomic investigation of the plaque microbiome associated with peri-implant diseases in a cohort of 91 subjects with 320 quality-controlled metagenomes. Through recently improved taxonomic profiling methods, we identified the most discriminative species between healthy and diseased subjects at baseline, evaluated their change over time, and provided evidence that clinical treatment had a positive effect on plaque microbiome composition in patients affected by mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Factors influencing outcomes of surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A secondary analysis of 1-year results from a randomized clinical study.

AIM: To identify predictors of treatment outcomes following surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing access flap with or without bone replacement graft. Outcomes at 12 months were probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), soft-tissue recession (REC) and marginal bone level (MBL) change. Multilevel regression analyses were used to identify predictors. We also built an explanatory model for residual signs of inflammation. RESULTS: Baseline PPD was the most relevant predictor, showing positive associations with final PPD, REC and MBL gain, and negative association with probability of pocket closure. Smokers presented higher residual PPD. Absence of keratinized mucosa at baseline increased the probability of BOP but was otherwise not indicative of outcomes. Plaque at 6 weeks was detrimental in terms of residual PPD and BOP. Treatment allocation had an effect on REC. Final BOP was explained by residual PPD ≥6 mm and plaque at more than two sites. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PPD was the most relevant predictor of the outcomes of surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Pocket closure should be a primary goal of treatment. Bone replacement grafts may be indicated in aesthetically demanding cases to reduce soft-tissue recession. The importance of smoking cessation and patient-performed plaque control is also underlined.

Reliability assessment of the 2018 classification case definitions of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy in the assignment of the case definitions of peri-implant health and diseases according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. METHODS: Ten undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis. RESULTS: The Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.

Subgingival instrumentation.

The S3-level clinical guidelines for the treatment of patients with periodontitis stages I-III published by the European Federation of Periodontology in 2020, suggest a pre-established stepwise approach for oral-healthcare professionals with precise therapeutic pathways. The second step of this approach consists of the subgingival instrumentation of periodontal pockets by non-surgical means to disrupt the microbial biofilm and remove soft and mineralized deposits This step aims to resolve periodontal inflammation by closure of periodontal pockets (probing pocket depth ≤ 4 mm, absence of bleeding on probing) employing different types of instruments and treatment protocols toward this end. Novel non-surgical treatment approaches that adopt micro instruments or subgingival application of biological agents have been recently tested. Subgingival instrumentation has been shown to effectively restore the subgingival microbiota to one associated with periodontal health and to modulate the inflammatory response. The outcomes of the subgingival instrumentation have to be evaluated in order to guide the therapist in providing additional but focused treatment in the remaining pockets OR at sites with residual inflammation. Of great importance is the impact that non-surgical periodontal treatment has on the patient's well-being, based on evidence that emerges from studies evaluating patient related outcomes and quality of life.

Prognostic value of a composite outcome measure for periodontal stability following periodontal regenerative treatment: A retrospective analysis at 4 years.

BACKGROUND: Recently, a composite outcome measure (COM) was proposed to describe the short-term results of periodontal regenerative treatment. The present retrospective study aimed at evaluating the prognostic value of COM on clinical attachment level (CAL) change over a 4-year period of supportive periodontal care (SPC). METHODS: Seventy-four intraosseous defects in 59 patients were evaluated at 6 months and 4 years following regenerative treatment. Based on 6-month CAL change and probing depth (PD), defects were classified as: COM1 (CAL gain ≥3 mm, PD ≤4 mm); COM2 (CAL gain <3 mm, PD ≤4 mm); COM3 (CAL gain ≥3 mm, PD >4 mm); or COM4 (CAL gain <3 mm, PD >4 mm). COM groups were compared for "stability" (i.e., CAL gain, no change in CAL or CAL loss <1 mm) at 4 years. Also, groups were compared for mean change in PD and CAL, need for surgical retreatment, and tooth survival. RESULTS: At 4 years, the proportion of stable defects in COM1, COM2, COM3, and COM4 group was 69.2%, 75%, 50%, and 28.6%, respectively, with a substantially higher probability for a defect to show stability for COM1, COM2, and COM3 compared with COM4 (odds ratio 4.6, 9.1, and 2.4, respectively). Although higher prevalence of surgical reinterventions and lower tooth survival were observed in COM4, no significant differences were detected among COM groups. CONCLUSIONS: COM may be of value in predicting CAL change at sites undergoing SPC following periodontal regenerative surgery. Studies on larger cohorts, however, are needed to substantiate the present findings.

Influence of soft tissue thickness on marginal bone level around dental implants: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial-sequential analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of soft tissue thickness on initial bone remodeling after implant installation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted by two independent reviewers on electronic databases up to May 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) performed on human subjects were included. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) were performed on the selected articles. The primary outcome was marginal bone loss. RESULTS: After screening, 6 studies were included in the final analysis, with a total of 354 implants, and a follow-up from 10 to 14 months. 194 implants were placed in a ≥ 2 mm soft tissue thickness, while 160 had <2 mm soft tissue thickness before implant placement. The included studies had a high level of heterogeneity (I2  > 50%). The meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between the two groups (0.54; p = .027) and the TSA analysis confirmed the results, despite the limited number of dental implants. Additional analysis showed that age and follow-up parameters were not statistically significant factors influencing the bone loss (p = .22 and p = .16, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available RCTS and CCTs, initial soft tissue thickness seems to influence marginal bone loss after a short follow-up period. Based on TSA analysis, further studies are needed to assess the influence of the soft tissue thickness on marginal bone loss. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021235324.

Complications and treatment errors in nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy can be subject to iatrogenesis, which includes all the complications directly or indirectly related to a treatment. These complications include both operator-dependent harms and errors and the consequences and adverse effects of the therapeutic procedures. The complications arising following nonsurgical periodontal treatment can be categorized as intraoperative and postoperative and can affect both soft and hard tissues at an intra-oral and extraoral level. Soft-tissues damage or damage to teeth and restorations can occur while performing the procedure. In the majority of cases, the risk of bleeding associated with nonsurgical therapy is reported to be low and easily controlled by means of local hemostatic measures, even in medicated subjects. Cervicofacial subcutaneous emphysema is not a frequent extraoral intraoperative complication, occurring during the use of air polishing. Moreover, side effects such as pain, fever, and dentine hypersensitivity are frequently reported as a consequence of nonsurgical periodontal therapy and can have a major impact on a patient's perception of the treatment provided. The level of intraoperative pain could be influenced by the types of instruments employed, the characteristics of tips, and the individual level of tolerance of the patient. Unexpected damage to teeth or restorations can also occur as a consequence of procedural errors.

Prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to April 2021 were conducted to identify longitudinal clinical studies with ≥10 patients on either the prevention or management of peri-implant diseases. Outcome measures of this analysis were the choice of outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analytical methods. Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Data were extracted into evidence tables and outcomes were analysed in a descriptive manner. RESULTS: The analysis of the 159 selected studies revealed that probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding/suppuration on probing (BOP) were reported in 89% and 87% of all studies, respectively. Additional outcome measures included plaque scores (reported in 64% of studies), radiographic outcomes (49%), soft tissue dimensions (34%), and composite outcomes (26%). Adverse events (8%) and patient-reported outcomes (6%) were only rarely mentioned. A primary outcome measure was clearly defined only in 36% of studies. Data on PPD, radiographic outcomes, and soft tissue dimensions were primarily reported as mean values and rarely as frequency distributions. For radiographic outcomes and soft tissue dimensions, it was frequently unclear how clustered data were handled. CONCLUSIONS: PPD and BOP were routinely reported in studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, while composite outcomes, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes were only infrequently described.

Prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analysis in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to April 2021 were conducted to identify longitudinal clinical studies with ≥10 patients on either the prevention or management of peri-implant diseases. Outcome measures of this analysis were the choice of outcome measures, methods of assessment, and analytical methods. Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Data were extracted into evidence tables and outcomes were analysed in a descriptive manner. RESULTS: The analysis of the 159 selected studies revealed that probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding/suppuration on probing (BOP) were reported in 89% and 87% of all studies, respectively. Additional outcome measures included plaque scores (reported in 64% of studies), radiographic outcomes (49%), soft tissue dimensions (34%), and composite outcomes (26%). Adverse events (8%) and patient-reported outcomes (6%) were only rarely mentioned. A primary outcome measure was clearly defined only in 36% of studies. Data on PPD, radiographic outcomes, and soft tissue dimensions were primarily reported as mean values and rarely as frequency distributions. For radiographic outcomes and soft tissue dimensions, it was frequently unclear how clustered data were handled. CONCLUSIONS: PPD and BOP were routinely reported in studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, while composite outcomes, adverse events, and patient-reported outcomes were only infrequently described.

Scientific rationale for study: In 2012, recommendations on study design, key outcome measures, and reporting in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant diseases were presented. We aimed to evaluate how these recommendations were adapted and utilized in relevant studies published during the last decade. Principal findings: Recommendations on outcome measures and reporting in clinical studies on the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were only partially followed. Practical implications: When evaluating the evidence on the prevention and management of peri-implant diseases, the clinician should be aware of the limitations in terms of choice of outcome measures and data reporting.

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Furcation involvement and tooth loss: A registry-based retrospective cohort study.

AIM: This registry-based retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the impact of furcation status on the risk for molar loss. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects with and without furcation involvement (FI) in 2010/2011 were identified in a nationwide registry in Sweden (age- and gender-matched sample: 381,450 subjects; 2,374,883 molars). Data on dental and periodontal status were extracted for the subsequent 10-year period. Impact of FI (at baseline or detected during follow-up) on molar loss (i.e., tooth extraction) was evaluated through multilevel logistic regression and survival analyses. RESULTS: FI had a significant impact on molar loss. FI degrees 2 and 3 resulted in adjusted risk ratios of 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.63-1.71) and 3.30 (95% CI 3.18-3.43), respectively. Following the first detection of deep FI (degrees 2-3), estimated survival decreased by 4% at 5 years and 8% at 10 years. In addition to FI, endodontic status and probing depth were relevant risk factors for molar loss. CONCLUSIONS: Furcation status had a clinically relevant impact on the risk for molar loss. Following first detection of deep FI, however, the decline in molar survival was minor.

Reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the potential benefit of the use of a bone substitute material in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, 138 patients (147 implants) with peri-implantitis were treated surgically, randomized by coin toss to either a control (access flap surgery) or a test group (reconstructive surgery using bone substitute material). Clinical assessments, including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP) as well as soft tissue recession (REC), were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Marginal bone levels (MBL), measured on intra-oral radiographs, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline and 12 months. No blinding to group allocation was performed. The primary outcome at 12 months was a composite measure including (i) implant not lost, (ii) absence of BOP/SOP at all aspects, (iii) PPD ≤5 mm at all aspects and (iv) ≤1 mm recession of mucosal margin on the buccal aspect of the implant. Secondary outcomes included (i) changes of MBL, (ii) changes of PPD, BOP%, and buccal KM, (iii) buccal REC and (iv) patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: During follow-up, four implants (one in the test group, three in the control group) in four patients were removed due to disease progression. At 12 months, a total of 69 implants in the test and 68 implants in the control group were examined. Thus, 16.4% and 13.5% of implants in the test and control group, respectively, met all predefined criteria of the composite outcome. PPD reduction and MBL gain were 3.7 mm and about 1.0 mm in both groups. Reduction in mean BOP% varied between 45% (test) and 50% (control), without significant differences between groups. Buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group (M = 0.7, SD = 0.9 mm) when compared to controls (M = 1.1, SD = 1.5 mm). PROs were favorable in both groups without significant differences. One case of allergic reaction to the antibiotic therapy was recorded. No other adverse events were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical therapy of peri-implantitis effectively improved the clinical and radiographic status at 12 months. While the use of a bone substitute material did not improve reductions of PPD and BOP, buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.

A randomized multi-centre study on the effectiveness of non-surgical periodontal therapy in general practice.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of two non-surgical treatment protocols for periodontitis patients in general dental practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-five dental hygienists (59 dental clinics) were randomly assigned to one of two treatment protocols: (i) establishment of adequate self-performed oral hygiene prior to a single session of ultrasonic instrumentation (guided periodontal infection control [GPIC]) or (ii) conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) including patient education and scaling and root planing integrated in multiple sessions. Residual pockets at 3 months were retreated in both groups. The primary outcome was pocket closure (probing pocket depth ≤ 4 mm) at 6 months. Multilevel models were utilized. RESULTS: Based on data from 615 patients, no significant differences with regard to clinical outcomes were observed between treatment protocols. Treatment-related costs (i.e., chair time, number of sessions) were significantly lower for GPIC than CNST. Smoking and age significantly affected treatment outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences between the two approaches were observed in regard to clinical outcomes. GPIC was more time-effective. Patient education should include information on the detrimental effects of smoking. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT02168621).

Etiology, occurrence, and consequences of implant loss.

Implant therapy aims at providing the patient with a functional and esthetically pleasing rehabilitation in a long-term perspective. The loss of an implant constitutes a major complication, which may have an impact on the treatment plan and/or jeopardize the longevity of the restoration. Implant loss may occur during the phase of osseointegration (early) or at a later time when the previously achieved osseointegration is lost (late). The present work evaluates the evidence on the occurrence of both events and discusses etiology, risk factors, and consequences.

Efficacy of rehabilitation of stage IV periodontitis patients with full-arch fixed prostheses: Tooth-supported versus Implant-supported-A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of implant-supported in comparison to tooth-supported full-arch prostheses in patients with stage IV periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/SCOPUS) up to March 2020 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort-like studies comparing/evaluating fixed full-arch rehabilitation on teeth or implants in patients with stage IV periodontitis. The primary outcome measure was loss of teeth/implants and restorations. Data extraction was performed to create evidence tables, and meta-analyses were carried out as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies (31 publications) were identified but none addressed the scientific question in a controlled and randomized design. The risk of bias throughout the included studies was judged to be high, and meta-analyses demonstrated a high degree of heterogeneity. Mean-weighted observation periods in studies on tooth-supported restorations were significantly longer than in studies on implant-supported restorations. The predicted loss of teeth and tooth-supported full-arch restorations over 10 years was 1% and 5%, respectively. The 15-year estimates were 10% and 13%. Corresponding predictions for implants and implant-supported restorations for 10 years amounted to 4% and 6%, respectively. Technical complications were the most commonly reported and affected 8% of tooth-supported restorations (during 7.2 years) and 42% of implant-supported structures (during 2.6 years). Peri-implantitis- or peri-implantitis-like symptoms were observed at an estimated 9% of implants (after 3.1 years). CONCLUSIONS: Based on observational studies on full-arch rehabilitation of stage IV periodontitis patients, 10-year estimates of tooth loss were lower than the corresponding estimates for implants. Estimated loss of tooth- and implant-supported restorations at 10 years was similar. Technical complications were more prevalent at implant-supported when compared to tooth-supported restorations.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study.

CONTEXT: The current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis. OBJECTIVE: The specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient's adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene. METHODS: The study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores. RESULTS: No substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients' experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients' satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients' experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

The staging and grading system in defining periodontitis cases: consistency and accuracy amongst periodontal experts, general dentists and undergraduate students.

AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate consistency and accuracy of the periodontitis staging and grading classification system. METHODS: Thirty participants (10 periodontal experts, 10 general dentists and 10 undergraduate students) and a gold-standard examiner were asked to classify 25 fully documented periodontitis cases twice. Fleiss kappa was used to estimate consistency across examiners. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to calculate consistency across time. Quadratic weighted kappa and percentage of complete agreement versus gold standard were computed to assess accuracy. RESULTS: Fleiss kappa for stage, extent and grade were 0.48, 0.37 and 0.45 respectively. The highest ICC was provided by students for stage (0.91), whereas the lowest ICC by general dentists for extent (0.79). Pairwise comparisons against gold standard showed mean value of kappa >0.81 for stage and >0.41 for grade and extent. Agreement with the gold standard for all three components of the case definition was achieved in 47.2% of cases. The study identified specific factors associated with lower consistency and accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis was highly consistent across time and moderately between examiners. Accuracy was almost perfect for stage and moderate for grade and extent. Additional efforts are required to improve training of general dentists.

Strong oral plaque microbiome signatures for dental implant diseases identified by strain-resolution metagenomics.

Dental implants are installed in an increasing number of patients. Mucositis and peri-implantitis are common microbial-biofilm-associated diseases affecting the tissues that surround the dental implant and are a major medical and socioeconomic burden. By metagenomic sequencing of the plaque microbiome in different peri-implant health and disease conditions (113 samples from 72 individuals), we found microbial signatures for peri-implantitis and mucositis and defined the peri-implantitis-related complex (PiRC) composed by the 7 most discriminative bacteria. The peri-implantitis microbiome is site specific as contralateral healthy sites resembled more the microbiome of healthy implants, while mucositis was specifically enriched for Fusobacterium nucleatum acting as a keystone colonizer. Microbiome-based machine learning showed high diagnostic and prognostic power for peri-implant diseases and strain-level profiling identified a previously uncharacterized subspecies of F. nucleatum to be particularly associated with disease. Altogether, we associated the plaque microbiome with peri-implant diseases and identified microbial signatures of disease severity.

Patients' perceptions of implant therapy and maintenance: A questionnaire-based survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' perceptions regarding implant treatment and maintenance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A semi-structured questionnaire was developed focusing on 4 main domains: (a) information regarding possible complications received before implant therapy; (b) information received after treatment regarding maintenance; (c) self-performed daily home care; and (d) implant maintenance received at the dental office. Adult patients, restored with implant-supported prosthesis by at least 6 months, were recruited between June 2016 and December 2017. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 522 patients with a mean age of 61 years. The majority of the participants referred to have received information about the need of periodical check-ups (91.6%). However, only 58.9% declared to have been informed about complications and failures before treatment commencement. Even though 91.2% of the participants declared to have received instruction about cleaning measures around implants, less than half of the sample reported to have been asked to try the cleaning tools at the office (40.4%). Even though patients' awareness about implant treatment and maintenance resulted to be low in a consistent part of the sample, patients' satisfaction level about information received regarding implant care was high (Visual Analogue Scale 8.18). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients appeared to be informed about the importance of specific oral hygiene measurements and recall programs. However, an unsatisfactory level of knowledge about implant-related complications was evidenced. Improvements in time and energy employed by dentists and hygienist in communication with patients are needed, in order to enhance health outcomes and compliance both to the treatment and to the maintenance.