Reasons for Crown Failures in Primary Teeth: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is a tendency nowadays to restore large defects in primary dentition with pediatric crowns instead of conventional restorations. Thus, understanding the factors contributing to the survival or failure of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry is essential for optimizing treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this protocol is to outline the methodological approach for analyzing data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials to investigate reasons for the failure of dental crowns in primary teeth and to compute their survival and failure rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature review will be performed in electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science. As per predefined inclusion criteria, we will include observational studies (prospective clinical studies) and randomized clinical trials that have an English abstract and involve children aged 1-10 years undergoing crown restorations. Two independent reviewers will independently screen all retrieved records and full-text articles and extract data. The study's methodological quality will be appraised using suitable tools. Assessments of publication bias will be performed using funnel plots. The findings will be described qualitatively for the systematic review. If possible, a meta-analysis will be performed to estimate failure rates by dividing the number of failures by the total exposure time. A Poisson regression model, assuming constant event rates, will be used to compute 3-year and 5-year survival proportions. The Pearson goodness-of-fit statistics will be used to assess the heterogeneity of the model. A P value <.05 will be considered significant. All analyses will be performed using R Statistical software (version 4.1.2; R Core Team). RESULTS: This systematic review and synthesis aim to assess the survival and failure rates of dental crowns in pediatric dentistry. By following this rigorous methodology, we seek to provide valuable insights into the factors contributing to the success or failure of these restorations. The results of our full review will have implications for pediatric dentists, researchers, and policy makers, helping to improve dental care for children. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review protocol helps in establishing a thorough approach for reviewing failures in pediatric crowns. By following this methodology, standardization and transparency of the process as well as accountability for the stated methods and outcomes will be ensured. The findings of this review and analysis will provide useful data on the survival of crowns to pediatric dentists and researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023442266; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=442266. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/51505.

Survival and complication rates of two dental implant systems supporting fixed restorations: 10-year data of a randomized controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical, radiographic, biological and technical long-term outcomes of two types of dental implants over a period of 10 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight implants were placed in 64 patients, randomly allocated to one of two manufacturers (AST and STM). All implants were loaded with fixed restorations. Outcome measures were assessed at implant insertion (Ti), at baseline examination (TL), at 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 (T10) years. Data analysis included survival, bone level changes, complications and clinical measures. RESULTS: Re-examination was performed in 43 patients (23 AST and 20 STM) at 10 years. The implant level analysis was based on 37 (AST) and 32 (STM) implants. Survival rates of 100% were obtained for both groups. The median changes of the marginal bone levels between baseline and T10 (the primary endpoint) amounted to a loss of 0.07 mm for group AST and a gain of 0.37 mm for group STM (intergroup p = 0.008). Technical complications occurred in 27.0% of the implants in group AST and in 15.6% in group STM. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 29.7% (AST) and 50.1% (STM). The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 0% (AST) and 6.3% (STM). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the implant system used, the survival rates after 10 years were high. Minimal bone level changes were observed, statistically significant but clinically negligible in favor of STM. Technical complications were more frequently encountered in group AST, while group STM had a higher prevalence of peri-implant mucositis.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia dental implants-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: For the present review, the following focused question was addressed: In patients with root-analog dental implants, what is the effect of implants made of other materials than titanium (alloy) on implant survival, marginal bone loss (MBL), and technical and biological complications after at least 5 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic (Medline, Embase, Web of Science) search was performed to identify observational clinical studies published from January 2000 investigating a minimum of 20 commercially available zirconia implants with a mean follow-up of at least 60 months. Primary outcome was implant survival, secondary outcomes included peri-implant MBL, probing depths (PDs), and technical and biological complications. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate implant survival, MBL, and PD. RESULTS: From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 4 prospective and 2 retrospective observational clinical cohort studies were included for data extraction. Meta-analyses estimated after 5 years of loading mean values of 97.2% (95% CI 94.7-99.1) for survival (277 implants, 221 patients), 1.1 mm (95% CI: 0.9-1.3) for MBL (229 implants, 173 patients), and 3.0 mm (95% CI 2.5-3.4) for PDs (231 implants, 175 patients). CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years, commercially available zirconia implants showed reliable clinical performance based on survival rates, MBL, and PD values. However, more well-designed prospective clinical studies and randomized clinical trials investigating titanium and zirconia implants are needed to confirm the presently evaluated promising outcomes.

Survival and success of zirconia compared with titanium implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review assessed the available evidence on the survival and success rate of zirconia and titanium implants. As secondary outcomes, aesthetic, radiographic and clinical parameters, as well as biological and mechanical complications, were considered. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was performed up to March 2022 to identify CCTs/RCTs comparing zirconia and titanium implants with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed when ≥ 2 articles with similar characteristics were retrieved. RESULTS: Four published articles with two RCTs (2 different patient populations) with 100 zirconia and 99 titanium implants that were followed up over 12-80 months were selected out of the 6040 articles. A non-statistically significant difference between zirconia and titanium implant survival at 12 months was suggested (P = 0.0938). The success rates were 57.5-93.3% and 57.1-100% for zirconia and titanium implants, respectively. The pink aesthetic score (PES) was higher for zirconia (10.33 ± 2.06 to 11.38 ± 0.92) compared to titanium implants (8.14 ± 3.58 to 11.56 ± 1.0). CONCLUSION: Based on the 2 RCTs retrieved in the literature, similar survival rates were reported for zirconia and titanium implants in the short term (12 months of follow-up). Future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zirconia implants. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Zirconia implants may be the procedure of choice, particularly in the aesthetic zone, since they show a similar survival and success rate as titanium implants on a short-term follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration number-CRD42021288704 (PROSPERO).

Long-Term Effect of Guided Implant Surgery on Clinical Outcomes and Peri-Implantitis of Maxillary Implants-An Observational Cohort Study.

(1) Although the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIP) is well reported, information on its long-term effect on peri-implant health and complications is scarce. (2) Twenty-six patients initially treated were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone level, peri-implant health, and complications were registered. A multilevel regression model was applied to study the relationship between the research variables. (3) Sixteen patients participated in this study (average age 58.5 years; range 27.8-73.8). The mean follow-up time was 9.1 years (range 7.3-11.3). Two implants failed, resulting in a survival rate of 97.1%. The mean bone level change corresponded to a loss of 0.63 mm (SD 1.90) for the whole group, 0.17 mm (SD 1.46), and 0.91 mm (SD 2.09) for tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. The mean PPD for the total group was 4.24 mm (SD 1.25), and 3.79 mm (SD 0.97) and 4.51 mm (SD 1.33) for the tooth- and mucosa-supported guides, respectively. Four implants (6.3%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Coronal deviation was slightly associated with having a negative impact on bone level at follow-up, but this was not statistically significant. Seven patients (43.8%) experienced technical complications. Biological complications were seen in 3/16 patients (18.75%). (4) SCAIP may contribute to more predictable implant placement; the long-term clinical outcome is similar to conventional nonguided surgery.

Peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation: A critical update.

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition induced by bacterial biofilm that affects the soft and hard tissues surrounding dental implants, compromising the success of implant therapy. Recent studies have highlighted the potential links between peri-implant health and systemic inflammation, including uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, psychological stress, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and infectious diseases such as COVID-19. As an inflammatory disease, peri-implantitis may trigger systemic inflammation by elevating circulating levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which could have unknown impacts on overall health. While the relationship between periodontal health and systemic conditions is better understood, the association between peri-implant disease and systemic inflammation remains unclear. Therefore, this comprehensive review aims to summarize the most recent evidence on the relationship between peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation, focusing on biological complications, microbiology, and biomarkers. This review aims to enhance our understanding of the links between peri-implantitis and systemic inflammation and promote further research in this field by discussing the latest insights and clinical implications.

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.

Reasons for Failure of CAD/CAM Restorations in Clinical Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

AIM: The systematic review presented herein was performed to descriptively analyze the causes for the failure of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM) restorations. The meta-analysis reported herein was performed to estimate long-term survival and success rates of CAD-CAM fabrications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the PICOS paradigm, a systematic search was carried out in the PubMed and Cochrane databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies reporting survival data for CAD/CAM restorations. After selecting studies with a predefined set of selection criteria, data from included prospective clinical studies and RCTs were used for a systematic review aimed at a descriptive analysis of factors associated with failure of CAD-CAM restorations. Data from the included prospective clinical studies were used for meta-analysis, wherein 5-year and 10-year survival and success rates were estimated using Poisson regression models. RESULTS: The systematic review included data from 9 RCTs and 6 observational studies, which had a median follow-up of 36 months and 60 months, respectively. About 58 failures and 118 technical/ biological complications were noted in the included RCTs and 9 failures along with 58 technical/biological complications were noted in the prospective clinical studies. Poisson regression indicated an estimated 5-year and 10-year survival rates of 85.55-100 and 71-100, respectively. The estimated 5-year and 10-year success rates were 74.2-92.75 and 33.3-85.5, respectively. CONCLUSION: Several technical and biological complications contribute to failure of CAD/CAM restorations. However, CAD/CAM restorations with routine chairside materials might have clinically meaningful success rates in the long term. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented herein indicate that optimal strategies for mitigation of biological and technical complications may augment the success of CAD/CAM fabrications in restorative dentistry. Studies aimed at identification of such strategies are needed to further enhance the long-term success rates of CAD/CAM restorations.

Incidence of Peri-Implantitis, Technical and Biological Complications of Single Implants Placed with Flap or Flapless Surgery-A 10-12-Year Case-Series.

BACKGROUND: Long-term follow-up of single implants and crowns is scarce, especially when inserted using flapless surgery. AIM: Evaluate survival, peri-implantitis incidence, and technical/biologic complications of solitary implants/crowns after 10-12 years of function. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 49 patients with 53 single implants, initially operated with a one-stage flap (F) or flapless (FL) surgery and delayed loading, were recalled. Implant survival, radiographic bone-level changes compared to baseline, peri-implant health, and soft tissue aesthetics were registered. Differences in implant level between and within groups were statistically tested using the Mann-Whitney U-Test and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively. RESULTS: 36 patients with 40 implants were reassessed, yielding 100% implant and 97.5% crown survival. The bone loss in F (n = 19) was 0.56 mm (SD 0.89; range -0.9-2.02) and -0.85 mm (SD 0.98; range -2.84-0.53) in FL (n = 21), indicative of bone gain in FL (p = 0.003), the latter due to a difference at baseline but bone-level was comparable (p = 0.126). Groups were comparable for probing pocket depth (PPD); (3.32 vs. 3.19 mm), Bleeding Index (BI); (0.15 vs. 0.22), and gingival recession; (0.38 vs. 0.17 mm). According to international criteria, the peri-implantitis incidence was 0%, but 32.5% of the implants/crowns experienced biological or technical complications irrespective of surgical technique. CONCLUSIONS: Solitary implants and crowns show good long-term clinical outcomes and peri-implant health. Flapless surgery is a good alternative to conventional in straightforward cases with sufficient bone volume and proper treatment planning.

Occlusion as a predisposing factor for peri-implant disease: A review article.

BACKGROUND: The restoration of dental implants presents a unique challenge due to the intrinsic biomechanical differences between osseointegrated implants and natural teeth, and their subsequent responses to occlusal loading. However, controversy exists regarding the role that occlusion plays in the physiology of the peri-implant complex. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the scientific literature regarding occlusion as it relates to implant dentistry and peri-implant disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article presents a narrative review on occlusal loading and its potential effects on the peri-implant complex, as well as some generally accepted guidelines for occlusion in implant dentistry. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although there is strong evidence linking occlusal factors to mechanical complications of dental implants, the same cannot be said regarding biological complications. There is no clear scientific evidence on the relationship between occlusal overload and peri-implant disease. However, occlusal overload may be an accelerating factor for peri-implant disease in the presence of inflammation. As the biomechanical properties of dental implants differ from that of the natural dentition, modifications to classic concepts of occlusion may be necessary when dental implants are involved. Thus, clinical recommendations are proposed which function to minimize unfavorable occlusal forces on implant restorations and reduce the associated biological and mechanical complications.

A review on the biological, epidemiological, and statistical relevance of COVID-19 paired with air pollution.

This narrative review paper is aimed to critically evaluate recent studies of the associations between air pollution and the outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic. The main air pollutants we have considered are carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ground-level ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). We, specifically, evaluated the influences of these pollutants, both individually and collaboratively, across various geographic areas and exposure windows. We further reviewed the proposed biological mechanisms underlying the association between air pollution and COVID-19. Ultimately, we aim to inform policy and public health practice regarding the implications of COVID-19 and air pollution.

Long-term clinical outcomes of short implant (6mm) in relation to Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA).

AIM: To evaluate the long-term survival of short implants and to investigate the association of the Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) with the occurrence of biological complications. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study was designed as a cohort study with a median follow-up of 10.0 years. Patients who had received 6-mm implants were reviewed and assigned into low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups (Group L, M, and H) based on the IDRA tool. The implant survival, biological complications, soft tissue condition, hardware complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were performed for survival analysis. RESULTS: A hundred and ten patients were included. The overall cumulative survival rate was 90.9% (L:100.0%, M: 93.3%, and H: 80.6%). A higher risk profile was significantly associated with a decreased implant survival (hazard ratio: 4.11, 95% CI: 1.17-14.36, p < .05). Higher risk profile (hazard ratio: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.32-5.25, p < .05) was a potential risk factor for biological complications. At follow-up, significant differences in bleeding index, modified plaque index, and peri-implant probing depth were found among groups (p < .01). No significant difference was found in MBL. CONCLUSION: Acceptable long-term clinical outcomes could be achieved after 10 years for short implants. Despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in MBL, patients with a high-risk profile of IDRA seem to be at greater risk of implant loss and biological complications.

Retrospective clinical study of tooth-supported single crowns: A multifactor analysis.

The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of multiple factors on the survival of tooth-supported single crowns and assess the biological and technical complications. This retrospective study included patients rehabilitated with single crowns with a minimum follow-up time of 6 months after delivery. The cumulative survival rate was calculated over the maximum period of follow-up time and reported in a life-table survival analysis. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression was used to evaluate the associations between clinical covariates and crown failure. The included cohort group consisted of 1037 single crowns delivered in 401 patients and followed for a mean of 134.8 ± 80.2 months. Cumulative survival rate was 89.9% and 80.9% after 5 and 10 years and 70.5% and 61.8% after 15 and 20 years, respectively. The main reasons for single crown failure were loss of retention, tooth loss, and fracture. Anterior placement, non-vital abutments, and bruxism significantly influenced the survival of single crowns. The survival of single crowns was not influenced by patient's age and sex, location of the crowns in relation to the jaws, type of tooth, presence of post and core, and type of crown material, treatment providers, or smoking. Anterior placement, non-vital abutments, and bruxism are factors suggested to increase the risk of single crown failure and the prevalence of technical and biological complications.

Randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed restorations-Results at 8 years of loading.

OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, technical, biological, and radiographic outcomes of implants supporting fixed restorations using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions at 8 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (S1 or S2) and eventually fixed restorations. Patients were examined at loading (TL ), one (T1 ), three (T3 ), five (T5 ), and eight years (T8 ). Outcome measures included implant and restoration survival, technical and biological complications, and radiographic bone levels. All data were analyzed on the implant and patient level. RESULTS: Ninety-eight implants were inserted in 64 patients and loaded with fixed restorations. At 8 years, 49 patients with 42 (S1) and 36 (S2) implants (25 in group S1 and 24 in group S2 on the patient level) were re-examined. The survival rates on the patient level were 97.6% (S1) and 97.2% (S2). The marginal bone levels (the primary endpoint) amounted to a gain of 0.21 mm (Q1: -0.11 mm; Q3: 0.5 mm) (S1) (p = .007) and to a loss of 0.24 mm (Q1: -0.79 mm; Q3: 0.05 mm) (S2) (p = .001) between baseline (TL ) and T8 (intergroup p < .001). The technical complication rates were 28% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .289). Peri-implant mucositis was observed in 24% (S1) and 50% (S2) of the implants on the patient level (intergroup p = .792). The respective figures for peri-implantitis were 0% (S1) and 12.5% (S2) (intergroup p = .11). CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions supporting fixed restorations resulted in high survival rates independent of the system used. Differences, mainly observed in terms of technical complications (in favor of S2), biological complications (in favor of S1), and marginal bone-level changes (in favor of group S1), appear to be clinically negligible.

Health economic aspects of implant-supported restorative therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood how much additional dental care patients consume subsequent to implant therapy. The aim of the present study is to evaluate costs associated with implant-supported restorative therapy during the long-term follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Costs associated with preventive measures and complication-related procedures over a mean follow-up period of 8.2 years were assessed in patient files of 514 Swedish subjects provided with implant-supported restorative therapy. The restorative therapy and each of the subsequent interventions were assigned a specific cost. Accumulated costs were calculated in three categories: (i) total cost including initial restorative therapy and complication-related interventions, (ii) cost of preventive measures alone, and (iii) cost of complication-related procedures alone. Potential differences by background variables were analyzed using growth curve models. RESULTS: In the whole sample, costs during follow-up ranged from 878 € (95% CI 743; 1,014) for patients with single-tooth restoration(s) to 1,210 € (95% CI 1,091; 1,329) for subjects with full-jaw restoration(s). The majority of costs during follow-up originated from preventive measures (741 € 95% CI 716; 766). Among individuals receiving ≥1 intervention dealing with a complication (n = 253), complication-related costs amounted to 557 € (95% CI 480; 634). For patients with full-jaw restorations, the corresponding amount was 769 € (95% CI 622; 916). Procedures related to peri-implantitis and technical complications resulted in costs similar to each other. Implant loss generated greater costs than any other type of complication. CONCLUSIONS: Costs related to implant-supported restorative therapy during follow-up were associated with the extent of initial therapy. The higher costs during follow-up noted in patients provided with full-jaw restorations were explained by complication-associated procedures. Implant loss was the most costly type of complication.

Clinical outcomes and biological and mechanical complications of immediate fixed prostheses supported by zygomatic implants: A retrospective analysis from a prospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Zygomatic implants alone or in combination with conventional implants have been used for severe atrophic maxillary arches. Long-term outcomes of extramaxillary technique need validations. PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes and the prevalence of surgical, biological, and prosthetic complications of implant-fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) supported by zygomatic implants up to 11 years of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental records of 34 subjects treated between October 2008 and June 2019 were reviewed. Patients received an immediate fixed full-arch prosthesis supported solely by zygomatic implants or by a combination of zygomatic and conventional implants. RESULTS: A total of 90 zygomatic implants and 53 standard implants were placed. Up to 11 years of follow-up, two conventional implants were lost, leading to 96.2% success rate for conventional implants and 100% for zygomatic implants. Marginal bone loss for conventional implants averaged 0.85 ± 0.17 mm after the first year and 1.36 ± 0.12 mm after 10 years, resulting in full implant success. No prosthesis was lost. The main surgical complication was the perforations of the Schneiderian membrane, occurring in five patients and in seven sinus cavities. Considering the biological complications, mucositis for standard and zygomatic implants ranged between 21%-35% and 26%-40%, respectively. No peri-implantitis were reported. Soft tissue hypertrophy ranged between 1.8% and 30% for conventional implants and 1.1%-35% for zygomatic implants. Inflammation under the prosthesis ranged between 33% and 50%. For the mechanical complications, abutment loosening was recorded in 5.8% of cases (two patients), tooth debonding and fracture of the prosthesis happened in five subjects (14.7%), and loosening of the prosthetic screws was reported in one patient (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla with zygomatic implants alone or in combination with standard implants could be considered a viable treatment modality.

Peri-Implantitis: A Clinical Update on Prevalence and Surgical Treatment Outcomes.

Dental implants may be considered a reliable routine procedure in clinical practice for the replacement of missing teeth. Results from long-term studies indicate that implant-supported dental prostheses constitute a predictable treatment method for the management of fully and partially edentulous patients. Implants and their restorations, however, are not free from biological complications. In fact, peri-implantitis, defined as progressive bone loss associated to clinical inflammation, is not a rare finding nowadays. This constitutes a concern for clinicians and patients given the negative impact on the quality of life and the sequelae originated by peri-implantitis lesions. The purpose of this narrative review is to report on the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to overview the indications, contraindications, complexity, predictability and effectiveness of the different surgical therapeutic modalities to manage this disorder.

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri-implant diseases: A university-representative cross-sectional study.

AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and forty randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history were collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. Peri-implantitis was defined as the presence of BoP/SoP together with radiographic bone levels (BL) ≧2 mm. An intermediate peri-implant health category between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was also identified, defined by the presence of BoP/SoP together with 1 mm ≦BL < 2 mm. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri-implantitis. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalences of pre-periimplantitis and of peri-implantitis were, respectively, 31.3% and 56.6% at patient-level, while 31.7% and 27.9% at implant level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis: smoking (OR = 3.59; 95% CI: 1.52-8.45), moderate/severe periodontitis (OR = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.20-6.36), <16 remaining teeth (OR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.05-4.73), plaque (OR = 3.49; 95% CI: 1.13-10.75), implant malposition (too vestibular: OR = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.17-6.93), implant brand (Nobel vs. Straumann: OR = 4.41;95% CI: 1.76-11.09), restoration type (bridge vs. single crown: OR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.19-5.12), and trauma as reason of tooth loss (vs. caries: OR = 6.51; 95% CI: 1.45-29.26). Conversely, the following factors were identified as protective indicators: interproximal flossing/brushing (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11-0.68), proton pump inhibitors (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.90), and anticoagulants (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.56). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant diseases are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university-based population. Several factors were identified as risk- and protective- indicators of peri-implantitis.

Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri-implant diseases: a university-representative cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To study the symptoms and perception reported by patients with peri-implant diseases, as well as their signs and their potential impact on the oral health quality of life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two hundred and forty randomly selected patients were invited to participate. As part of the history assessment, the patient OHIP-14Sp was evaluated together with, for each implant, the patient perception regarding the peri-implant health status and the history of pain, spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, suppuration, swelling, and discomfort during brushing. As part of the clinical examination, the following potential signs of peri-implant diseases were collected: probing pocket depth (PPD), mucosal dehiscence (MD), extent of BoP, presence of SoP, and visual signs of redness and swelling. Those parameters were analyzed in relation to the actual peri-implant health diagnosis. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were studied. Even in case of peri-implantitis, 88.9% of the implants were perceived by the patients as healthy. The total OHIP-14Sp sum score did not differ in relation to the peri-implant health diagnosis. Increased reports of spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, swelling, and discomfort during brushing were observed in presence of disease. However, only a minor proportion of implants with peri-implant diseases presented symptoms. PPD ≥ 6 mm was more frequent in diseased than in healthy implants (p < .01), while PPD ≥ 8 in pre-peri-implantitis/peri-implantitis than in healthy/mucositis implants (p < .01). Implants with peri-implantitis showed higher MD than implants without peri-implantitis (p < .01). CONCLUSION: Peri-implant diseases are in most cases asymptomatic and not perceived by the patients. Despite being unable to accurately discriminate between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, PPD and MD resulted as the only two clinical signs associated with pre-peri-implantitis/peri-implantitis.

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around dental implants.

AIM: To evaluate the prevalence of buccal peri-implant soft tissue dehiscence (PISTD) in anterior implants and to identify the risk/protective indicators of PISTD in implants not suffering peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 240 randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate in the present cross-sectional study. Those who accepted, after the evaluation of their medical and dental records, were clinically examined to assess the prevalence of buccal PISTD in non-molar implants. Multilevel multivariate logistic regression analyses were then carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with buccal PISTD in implants without peri-implantitis. RESULTS: 92 patients with a total of 272 dental implants were analysed. At implant-level, the prevalence of buccal PISTD was 16.9%, while when selecting only implants without peri-implantitis it was 12.0%. Buccal PISTD was present in 26.7% of the implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis. The following factors were identified as risk/protective indicators of buccal PISTD in implants without peri-implantitis: malposition (too buccal vs. correct: OR=14.67), thin peri-implant phenotype (OR=8.31), presence of at least one adjacent tooth (OR=0.08) and presence of abutment (OR=0.12). CONCLUSIONS: PISTD are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university-based population, and several factors were identified as risk and protective indicators of PISTD in implants not suffering peri-implantitis.