Early and late implant loss in a university-based periodontal setting: A retrospective analysis on 1821 patients and 2639 implants over a period of 18 years.

The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze the implant failure rate, not due to peri-implantitis, in periodontally compromised patients rehabilitated with at least one dental implant placed in a specialist university setting over the last 18 years. Records of patients receiving dental implants at the Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Switzerland, between 2005 and 2022 were analyzed. Data on 1821 patients with 2639 implants were retrieved. Fifty-nine patients experienced implant loss (rate at patient level: 3.2%) out of which 2.1% were early and 1.1% late implant losses, respectively. The majority of the 59 patients were males (68%) and 27.1% were smokers. Eight mm implants were lost with the highest rate (42.4%) followed by 10 mm implants (31.8%). The rate of lost maxillary implants was more than twice as high compared with that of mandibular implants (69.7 vs. 30.3%). Within the study limitations, the implant failure rate in this cohort of patients enrolled in regular supportive periodontal and peri-implant care, was low.

Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC). METHODS: Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months. RESULTS: At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188). CONCLUSION: In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.

Long-term treatment outcomes of single maxillary buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscences: A 10-year prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the 10-year clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of shallow isolated peri-implant soft-tissue dehiscences (PSTD) at single tissue level dental implants. METHODS: The baseline population included 16 patients (16 implants) displaying an isolated peri-implant maxillary buccal soft-tissue dehiscence. The recipient bed was prepared with a minimally-invasive split-thickness flap limited to the buccal aspect to stabilize the tuberosity connective tissue graft (CTG) onto the periosteum. At the end of treatment, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive peri-implant care (SPC) program. The aesthetic outcome was evaluated on photographs by three clinicians using a visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: SPC during the 10-years proceeded uneventfully in all patients. A total of 12 patients completed the 10-year examination, as 3 patients dropped-out and 1 implant was lost. Complete PSTD coverage was obtained at 7 implant sites (i.e., 58%) while the mean PSTD coverage amounted to 89.6% ± 17.1% without statistically significant differences between 1 and 10 years (p > 0.05). Stable peri-implant parameters (i.e., PD and BoP) and full-mouth scores (i.e., FMPS, FMBS) were recorded throughout the observation period (p > 0.05). The aesthetic improvements obtained in the short-term were maintained up to 10 years. CONCLUSION: Within their limits, the present results indicate that the proposed surgical technique is a simple and reliable treatment option for the treatment of single maxillary buccal PSTDs in selected cases with positive results up to 10 years in patients under regular SPC (NCT04983758-this clinical trial was not registered prior to participant recruitment).

Longitudinal assessment of peri-implant diseases in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year follow-up study.

PURPOSE: To longitudinally assess the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in a cohort of patients with and without history of periodontitis over a 20-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients who attended a specialist private periodontal practice were evaluated prospectively 10 and 20 years after prosthesis delivery. Following successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients (172 implants) were enrolled on an individualised supportive periodontal care programme. Clinical and radiographic parameters were collected to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. Prevalence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis was calculated based on the case definition set out in 2018. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess potential risk or protective factors. RESULTS: The analysis was performed on 22 periodontally healthy and 62 periodontally compromised patients rehabilitated with 39 and 130 implants, respectively. The 10-year prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 21.4%, 67.9% and 10.6%, respectively, whereas the 20-year prevalence was 29.8%, 47.6% and 33.3%, respectively. Non-compliant periodontally compromised patients showed a statistically significantly increased risk at 20 years of both peri-implant mucositis (odds ratio 11.1; 95% confidence interval 1.8-68.6) and peri-implantitis (bone loss and probing depth) (odds ratio 14.3; 95% confidence interval 1.8-32.9). High full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores were associated with higher odds of both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant diseases were prevalent in patients rehabilitated with dental implants and followed up for a period of 20 years. History of periodontal disease and a lack of compliance with a tailored supportive periodontal care programme were identified as risk factors for peri-implant diseases.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension: A proof-of-principle study with a follow-up of at least 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of full zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension (FDPCs) after at least 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients in need of implant-supported single unit crowns (SUC) and FDPCs in posterior areas were enrolled. After implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with screw-retained full-zirconia FDPCs. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP), and presence/absence of mechanical/technical complications were recorded. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e., recall appointment 3-6 months after implant loading [T0]) to the follow-up examination (i.e., latest recall appointment after at least 12 months after T0 [T1]), were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients with 34 FDPCs (31 SUCs and 3 FDPs) supported by 37 implants were available for analysis after a mean loading time of 2.6 ± 1.5 years (range: 13-87 months). No implants were lost. MBLs and mean PPD values did not change statistically significantly from T0 to T1 from 0.92 mm ± 0.42 to 0.96 mm ± 0.38 (95% CI: -0.07/0.17; p = .418) and from 2.99 mm ± 0.70 to 3.27 mm ± 0.71 (95% CI: -0.11/0.68; p = .25) respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 22 cases. Screw-loosening and zirconia chipping occurred 1× in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present proof-of-principle study, the use of full-zirconia FDPCs in posterior areas seems a valid and safe short-term treatment option.

Clinical periodontal diagnosis.

Periodontal diseases include pathological conditions elicited by the presence of bacterial biofilms leading to a host response. In the diagnostic process, clinical signs such as bleeding on probing, development of periodontal pockets and gingival recessions, furcation involvement and presence of radiographic bone loss should be assessed prior to periodontal therapy, following active therapy, and during long-term supportive care. In addition, patient-reported outcomes such as increased tooth mobility, migration, and tilting should also be considered. More important to the patient, however, is the fact that assessment of signs of periodontal diseases must be followed by an appropriate treatment plan. Furthermore, it should be realized that clinical and radiographic periodontal diagnosis is based on signs which may not reflect the presence of active disease but rather represent the sequelae of a previous bacterial challenge. Hence, the aim of the present review is to provide a summary of clinical and radiographic diagnostic criteria required to classify patients with periodontal health or disease.

Marginal bone level changes around dental implants with one or two adjacent teeth - A clinical and radiographic retrospective study with a follow-up of at least 10 years.

AIM: To compare mean bone level (mBL) changes around dental implants with one or two adjacent teeth after a function time of ≥10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred thirty three periodontally compromised patients (PCPs) with 551 implants enrolled in supportive periodontal care (SPC) were screened. Implants were categorized either into group TIT (tooth-implant-tooth) or into group TIG (tooth-implant-gap). MBL changes from delivery of restoration (i.e., baseline) to follow-up were calculated in millimeters and compared between implants and adjacent teeth. Survival rates and the need for surgical interventions during SPC were recorded. RESULTS: Eighty seven patients with 142 implants were re-evaluated after a mean observation time of 14.5 ± 3.5 years. The mBL at mesial implant sites in the TIT group increased -0.07 ± 0.92 mm and decreased in the TIG group 0.52 ± 1.34 mm, respectively (95% CI: 0.04/1.14, p = .037). At distal implant sites, the mBL in the TIT group increased -0.08 ± 0.84 mm and decreased 0.03 ± 0.87 in the TIG group, respectively (95% CI: -0.20/0.42, p = .48). The overall implant loss rate was 3.5% (n = 5; 2 TIT, 3 TIG), without a statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.18/7.07, p = .892). Tooth loss rates (TIT: 12.3%, TIG: 12.3%) were not statistically significantly different (OR = 1.00, p = .989). CONCLUSION: High tooth and implant survival rates were observed in PCPs. The presence of one or two adjacent teeth seemed to have no impact on marginal bone level changes.

Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions: State of the art and future perspectives.

Partial fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants have become a reliable long-term treatment option. Nevertheless, the replacement of two adjacent missing teeth, irrespective of location, still represents a clinical challenge. To overcome this, the use of fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions has gained popularity with a view to limiting morbidity, reducing costs and avoiding major surgical interventions prior to implant placement. The present review summarises the level of evidence for the use of fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions both in the posterior and anterior regions and indicates the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment, focusing on available medium- to long-term outcomes.

Resolution of peri-implant mucositis at tissue- and bone-level implants: A 6-month prospective controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare resolution of inflammation of naturally occurring peri-implant mucositis (PM) at tissue-level (TL) and bone-level (BL) implants after non-surgical mechanical debridement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four patients with 74 Implants with PM were allocated in two groups (39 TL and 35 BL implants) and treated by means of subgingival debridement using a sonic scaler with a plastic tip without adjunctive measures. At baseline and at 1, 3, 6 months, the full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and modified plaque index (mPlI) were recorded. The primary outcome was BOP change. RESULTS: After 6 months, the FMPS, FMBS, PD, and number of implants with plaque decreased statistically significantly in each group (p < .05); however, no statistically significant differences were found between TL and BL implants (p > .05). After 6 months, 17 (43.6%) TL and 14 (40%) BL implants showed a BOP change in (17.9%) and (11.4%), respectively. No statistical difference was recorded between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of present study, the findings showed no statistically significant differences in terms of changes in clinical parameters following non-surgical mechanical treatment of PM at TL and BL implants. A complete resolution of PM (i.e., no BOP at all implant sites) was not achieved in both groups.

Physiopathology of peri-implant diseases.

BACKGROUND: Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation. Peri-implant diseases are initiated by the presence of bacterial biofilms and share a similar etiology as that involved in the onset of periodontal diseases. PURPOSE: To summarize available evidence on the physiopathology of peri-implant diseases with emphasis on similarities and differences with periodontal diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence on the biologic mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were explored in the recent scientific literature. RESULTS: Findings of studies in animals and in humans indicate that experimental peri-implant mucositis leads to a larger inflammatory connective tissue infiltrate and to a higher frequency of bleeding sites around implants compared with teeth. Tissue destruction at experimental peri-implantitis sites is more pronounced compared with that at experimental periodontitis sites. Although human periodontitis and peri-implantitis lesions share similarities with respect to etiology and clinical features, they represent distinct entities from a physiopathologic point of view. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosis of peri-implant health requires a clinical examination to confirm absence of peri-implant soft tissue inflammation. In order to make a correct diagnosis and select the appropriate therapeutic steps to manage peri-implant diseases, knowledge of their pathogenetic mechanisms is required.

Efficacy of mechanical/physical approaches for implant surface decontamination in non-surgical submarginal instrumentation of peri-implantitis. A systematic review.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal peri-implant instrumentation with mechanical/physical decontamination compared to non-surgical submarginal instrumentation alone or with placebo decontamination in patients with peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three focused questions were addressed, and a systematic search for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, and prospective cohort studies with definitions of peri-implantitis and a minimal follow-up of 6 months was conducted. The main outcome variables were reduction in pocket probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Suppuration on probing, marginal peri-implant bone level changes, patient-related outcomes and adverse events, implant survival, treatment success, and disease resolution were assessed as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 239 findings, full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and 9 (n = 9 RCTs) were included in the present review. Five studies evaluated the effects of various laser types, and in four studies efficacy of air-abrasive mechanisms and of a novel ultrasonic device was determined. At 6 months, PD reductions were observed in nine studies but only Er, Cr:YSGG laser-treated group showed statistically significant higher reductions compared to the control group. BOP was statistically significantly reduced at 6 months in two studies following the application of Er:YAG laser compared to controls. One study reported statistically significant reduction in BOP following application of air-polishing device compared to control treatment. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were reported for the secondary outcome variables. Owing to the large heterogeneity of study designs, no meta-analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence on the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal peri-implant instrumentation with mechanical/physical decontamination is limited by the small number of controlled studies and the high heterogeneity of study protocols. Clinical and patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated.

Clinical outcomes of dental implants in patients with and without history of periodontitis: A 20-year prospective study.

AIM: To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss.

Non-surgical mechanical therapy of peri-implantitis with or without repeated adjunctive diode laser application. A 6-month double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to investigate the outcomes following non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis (PI) with or without adjunctive diode laser application. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A double-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial was carried out in 25 subjects with 25 implants diagnosed with PI. Following curettage of granulation tissue, test implants (T) were treated with adjunctive application of a diode laser for 90 s (settings: 810 nm, 2.5 W, 50 Hz, 10 ms), while at control implants (C) non-activated adjunctive diode laser was applied. The entire treatment procedure was performed at days 0 (i.e., baseline), 7 and 14. The primary outcome measure was change in mean pocket probing depth (PPD). Clinical and microbiological outcomes, as well as host-derived inflammatory markers were evaluated at baseline, 3 and 6 months, while radiographic outcomes were assessed at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences with respect to baseline patient characteristic were observed. After 6 months, both test and control implants yielded statistically significant PPD changes compared with baseline (T: 1.28 and C: 1.47 mm) but without statistically significant difference between groups (p = .381). No statistically significant changes in peri-implant marginal bone levels were detected (p = .936). No statistically significant differences between test and control implants were observed with respect to microbiological and host-derived parameters (p > .05). At the 6-month follow-up, treatment success was observed in 41.7% (n = 5) of test and 46.2% (n = 6) of control patients, respectively (p = .821). CONCLUSION: Repeated adjunctive application of diode laser in the non-surgical management of PI failed to provide significant benefits compared with mechanical instrumentation alone.

Enamel matrix derivative as adjunctive to non-surgical periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential additional benefit of the local application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the clinical outcomes following non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) (steps 1 and 2 periodontal therapy). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in several electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Register of Central Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, and grey literature. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Clinical attachment level (CAL) change (primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions (secondary outcomes) were evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the included trials. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between test and control sites were estimated using a random-effect model for amount of mean CAL and PPD change. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis, while data from 4 studies were used for meta-analysis. Overall analysis of CAL gain (3 studies) and PPD reduction (4 studies) presented WMD of 0.14 mm (p = 0.74; CI 95% - 0.66; 0.94) and 0.46 mm (p = 0.25; CI 95% - 0.33; 1.26) in favor of NSPT + EMD compared to NSPT alone respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was found to be high in both cases (I2 = 79% and 87%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Within their limitations, the present data indicate that the local application of EMD does not lead to additional clinical benefits after 3 to 12 months when used as an adjunctive to NSPT. However, due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, additional well-designed RCTs are needed to provide further evidence on this clinical indication for the use of EMD. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The adjunctive use of EMD to NSPT does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcomes obtained with NSPT alone.

Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses.

Dental implants have become a mainstream treatment approach in daily practice, and because of their high survival rates over time, they have become the preferred treatment option for prosthetic rehabilitation in many situations. Despite the relatively high predictability of implant therapy and high costs to patients, patient perceptions of success and patient-reported outcome measures have become increasingly significant in implant dentistry. Increasing numbers of publications deal with oral health-related quality of life and/or patient-reported outcome measures. The aim of this paper was to provide an overview of the available evidence on oral health-related quality of life of fully and partially dentate patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. A comprehensive electronic search was performed on publications in English up to 2021. A selection of standardized questionnaires and scales used for the evaluation of oral health-related quality of life were analyzed and explained. The analysis encompassed three aspects: a functional evaluation of oral health-related quality of life, an esthetic assessment of oral health-related quality of life, and a cost-related evaluation of oral health-related quality of life for rehabilitation with dental implants. The data demonstrated that the preoperative expectations of patients markedly affected the outcomes perceived by the patients. As expected, reconstructions supported by implants substantially improved the stability of conventional dentures and allowed improved function and patient satisfaction. However, from a patient's perspective, oral health-related quality of life was not significantly greater for dental implants compared with conventional tooth-supported prostheses. The connection of the implants to the prostheses with locators or balls indicated high oral health-related quality of life. The data also suggest that patient expectation is not a good predictor of treatment outcome. In terms of esthetic outcomes, the data clearly indicate that patients' perceptions and clinicians' assessments differed, with those of clinicians yielding higher standards. There were no significant differences found between the esthetic oral health-related quality of life ratings for soft tissue-level implants compared with those for bone-level implants. Comparison of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations showed no significant differences in patients' perceptions in terms of esthetic outcomes. Depending on the choice of outcome measure and financial marginal value, supporting a conventional removable partial denture with implants is cost-effective when the patient is willing to invest more to achieve a higher oral health-related quality of life. In conclusion, the oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with implant-supported dental prostheses did not show overall superiority over conventional prosthetics. Clinicians' and patients' evaluations, especially of esthetic outcomes, are, in the majority of cases, incongruent. Nevertheless, patient-reported outcomes are important in the evaluation of function, esthetics, and the cost-effectiveness of treatment with implant-supported dental prostheses, and should be taken into consideration in daily practice.

Long-term clinical outcomes of periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative: A retrospective cohort study with a mean follow-up of 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large body of evidence on the efficacy of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) in the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects, few studies reported long-term data (≥10-year). METHODS: Periodontal patients treated with regenerative surgery with EMD between 1999 and 2012 were invited to participate in a clinical examination. The following clinical parameters were recorded and compared at baseline (T0), 6 months after surgery (T1) and after at least 8 years of follow-up (T2): probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque and bleeding scores. The primary outcome variable was CAL change. RESULTS: Forty-one patients with 75 treated teeth were available for analysis. Out of these, 68 (tooth survival rate: 90.7%) reached the latest follow-up with a mean observation period of 10.3 years (range: 8.0 to 21.3). The most frequent reason for tooth loss was recurrence of periodontal disease. Tooth survival curves showed a statistically significant difference between smokers and non-smokers (P = 0.028). Mean CAL changed from 8.43 ± 1.86 (T0) to 6.47 ± 1.70 (T1) (P < 0.001) and to 5.91 ± 1.83 (T2) (P < 0.001). At T1, a CAL gain of ≥3 mm was measured in 35% of the defects whereas at T2 it was detected in 51% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Within their limitations, the present results have shown that in intrabony defects, the clinical improvements obtained following regenerative surgery with EMD can be maintained on a mean period of 10 years. Smoking status and maxillary molars were correlated with an increased risk for tooth and CAL loss, respectively.

Effect of combined periodontal and orthodontic treatment of tilted molars and of teeth with intra-bony and furcation defects in stage-IV periodontitis patients: A systematic review.

AIM: To assess the effect of combined periodontal and orthodontic treatment (OT) in stage-IV periodontitis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three focused questions were addressed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study Design criteria. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, follow-up studies, case series, and controlled/uncontrolled before/after studies were assessed for inclusion. Primary outcomes included mean changes in pocket probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). Qualitative synthesis of results was performed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Out of 916 records, 1 retrospective case series study reported the effect of OT of tilted molars, 2 RCTs and 10 prospective and 2 retrospective case series studies reported the effect of OT of treated intra-bony defects and 0 articles reported the effect of OT of treated furcation defects. Mean PPD changes were reported in 14 articles, and mean CAL changes were reported in 8 articles. Risk of bias was high in both included RCTs, critical in nine articles, and serious in four articles. No articles included patient-reported outcomes, and three articles reported harms/adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is limited by (i) the lack or low number of included studies, (ii) the apparent methodological and clinical heterogeneity, and (iii) the high risk of bias of the retrieved studies. No solid conclusions could be drawn concerning OT in stage-IV periodontitis patients with respect to tilted molars, teeth with treated intra-bony defects, and teeth with treated furcation defects.

Significance of probing for monitoring peri-implant diseases.

Peri-implant diseases at implant sites represent the most considerable concern for many dental clinicians nowadays due to their detrimental effect on implant longevity. Preventive measures include patient education and motivation, supportive peri-implant therapy and routine assessment of the hard and soft tissues. Nevertheless, the reliability of clinical parameters to monitor peri-implant conditions is subject to debate. As such, the primary purpose of the present review was to gain further insight into the diagnostic accuracy of probing as a clinical tool to monitor dental implants and assist clinicians in preventing peri-implant diseases. Studies have recommended periodic probing to monitor the condition of the peri-implant tissues. Increased probing pocket depth, profuse bleeding on probing and suppuration at implants are clinical signs that have been associated with peri-implantitis; thus, if these clinical parameters are present, radiographic assessment is encouraged to make a definitive diagnosis considering potential inaccuracies related to local and/or systemic factors identified in the present review.

Evaluation of the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A retrospective study in patients with treated periodontitis and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

AIM: To evaluate the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) tool for the prediction of peri-implantitis in treated periodontitis patients with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after at least 5 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From the patient pool of implant patients enrolled in a regular supportive periodontal therapy programme (SPT) for at least 5 years, 239 patients were screened. Eighty patients met the inclusion criteria and underwent evaluation through the criteria of the IDRA tool. Areas under the curve (AUCs) for receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves including 95% confidence intervals were estimated. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (43 males and 36 females, 8 smokers), aged on average 59.0 years (range: 40-79 years) at baseline (i.e. FDP delivery) were analysed. The calculated IDRA-risk was in 34 patients (42.5%) a moderate risk, while 45 patients (56.3%) were considered at high IDRA-risk. One patient categorized at low IDRA-risk was excluded from the analysis. The AUC was 0.613 (95% CI: 0.464-0.762) if the IDRA-risk was associated with prevalence of peri-implantitis at the most recent follow-up. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 4 patients (12%) at moderate and in 12 patients (27%) at high IDRA-risk, respectively. The calculated odds ratio for developing peri-implantitis in patients with high IDRA-risk compared with patients with moderate IDRA-risk was 2.727 with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (95% CI: 0.793-9.376). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, the IDRA algorithm might represent a promising tool to assess patients at moderate or high risk of developing peri-implantitis.