The impact of electronic cigarettes on peri-implant health: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Recent literature suggests that the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) is a substantial contributing factor to the unsuccessful outcomes of dental implant procedures. Our aim was to systematically review the effect of e-cigarette use on clinical (PI, PD, BOP), radiographic (bone loss), and immunologic (IL-1ß) peri­implant parameters. DATA: Main search terms used in combination: electronic cigarette, peri­implantitis, vaping. SOURCES: An electronic search was undertaken for MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and SCOPUS databases between 2017 and 2023. STUDY SELECTION: The study protocol was developed according to PRISMA guidelines, and the focus question was formulated according to the PICO strategy. No restriction was accepted regarding language or year to avoid selection bias; the initial database search yielded 49 publications. Following the selection process, only seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies were statistically analyzed via MedCalc program. A pooled effect was deemed statistically significant if the p-value was less than 0.05. CONCLUSION: Electronic cigarettes cause an increase in probing depth, bone loss, and the level of IL-1ß, one of the bone destruction mediators in the tissues around the implant, and a decrease in bleeding on probing. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: E-cigarette is a potential risk factor for the healing process and the results of implant treatment, similar to cigarettes. Performing clinical research to evaluate the e-cigarette effect on peri­implantitis in an age and gender-match population is needed.

Influence of the level of compliance with preventive maintenance therapy upon the prevalence of peri-implant diseases.

BACKGROUND: A study was made to evaluate peri-implant conditions in compliers and erratic compliers with peri-implant maintenance therapy (PIMT), and to assess the role of site-specific confounders. METHODS: Erratic PIMT compliers (EC) were defined as presenting attendance < 2×/year, while regular compliers (RC) attended ≥ 2×/year. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were employed to perform a multivariable multilevel analysis in which the peri-implant condition was established as dependent variable. RESULTS: Overall, 86 non-smoker patients (42 RC and 44 EC) attending the Department of Periodontology of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya were recruited consecutively on a cross-sectional basis. The mean period of loading was 9.5 year. An implant placed in an erratic patient has 88% higher probability of presenting peri-implant diseases versus RC. Furthermore, the probability of diagnosis of peri-implantitis was significantly higher in EC versus RC (odds ratio [OR] 5.26; p = 0.009). Among other factors, history of periodontitis, non-hygienic prosthesis, period of implant loading, and modified plaque index (mPI) at implant level were shown to significantly increase the risk of peri-implantitis diagnosis. Although not associated with peri-implantitis diagnosis risk, keratinized mucosa (KM) width, and vestibular depth (VD) were significantly associated to plaque accumulation (mPI). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with PIMT was found to be significantly associated with peri-implant condition. In this sense, attending PIMT < 2×/year may be ineffective to prevent peri-implantitis.

The influence of implant position and of prosthetic characteristics on the occurrence of peri-implantitis: a retrospective study on periapical radiographs.

OBJECTIVE: The present retrospective study aimed to investigate the influence of malposition on the occurrence of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included clinical records of systemically healthy patients with single and partial implant-supported rehabilitations and at least 1-year post-loading follow-up. The parameters collected included implant-related factors, patient-related factors, site-related factors, and prosthesis-related factors. The radiographic measurements were taken by using a dedicated software and the diagnosis of peri-implantitis was made based on all the available clinical and radiographic data. Descriptive statistics were provided for all variables. Following an exploratory approach, an implant-level analysis of factors influencing the occurrence of peri-implantitis was done through a multilevel multivariate logistic regression (mixed). RESULTS: A total of 180 implants belonging to 90 subjects were randomly selected. Malposition showed no statistically significant association with the occurrence of peri-implantitis. According to the multi-level analysis, the parameters that were significantly associated with peri-implantitis included presence / history of periodontitis (OR = 5.945, 95% CI: 1.093 - 32.334, P = 0.039) and presence of an emergence profile angle ≥ 45° (OR = 9.094, 95% CI: 2.017 - 40.995, P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Implant malposition, as defined following Buser's criteria (2004), did not influence the occurrence of peri-implantitis in the selected cohort. Conversely, history of periodontitis and presence of a prosthetic emergence profile with an angle ≥ 45° were correlated to an increased risk of peri-implantitis.

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.

Prevalence and risk factors of peri-implant diseases at patient-level: A cross-sectional study in Syria.

OBJECTIVES: This research aims to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and to analyze variables of the probable risk at the patient level associated with the occurrence of peri-implant diseases in Syrian patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study has been carried out on 142 patients with 380 dental implants placed between 2015 and 2021. Patients were invited by phone to return to Damascus University's Periodontology Department for clinical and radiological examination. A descriptive statistical analysis was implemented for the prevalence of peri-implant diseases at the level of the patients. Also, the peri-implant diseases' factors of risk were determined by the multivariate analytical model. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients was 58.5% and 25.4%, respectively. Peri-implant disease is associated with multivariate risk indices, gender female (peri-implant mucositis [OR = 0.269; 95% CI: 0.131-0.552] and peri-implantitis [OR = 0.561; 95% CI: 0.561-0.216]), diabetes (peri-implant mucositis [OR = 3.4; 95% CI: 1.73-12.73]), periodontitis (peri-implant mucositis [OR = 2.409; 95% CI: 1.760-2.613], peri-implantitis [OR = 10.445; 95% CI: 4.097-26.629]). CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant diseases are common in the Syrian community. Several patient-level variables (gender female, diabetes, and periodontitis) are associated with peri-implant disease.

Prevalence of peri-implantitis after alveolar ridge preservation at periodontitis and nonperiodontitis extraction sites: A retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Periodontitis is the main indication for dental extraction and often leads to peri-implantitis (PI). Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is an effective means of preserving ridge dimensions after extraction. However, whether PI prevalence is lower after ARP for extraction after periodontitis remains unclear. This study investigated PI after ARP in patients with periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study explored the 138 dental implants of 113 patients. The reasons for extraction were categorized as periodontitis or nonperiodontitis. All implants were placed at sites treated using ARP. PI was diagnosed on the basis of radiographic bone loss of ≥3 mm, as determined through comparison of standardized bitewing radiographs obtained immediately after insertion with those obtained after at least 6 months. Chi-square and two-sample t testing and generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model were employed to identify risk factors for PI. Statistical significance was indicated by p < 0.05. RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 24.6% (n = 34). The GEE univariate logistic regression demonstrated that implant sites and implant types were significantly associated with PI (premolar vs. molar: crude odds ratios [OR] = 5.27, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.15-12.87, p = 0.0003; bone level vs. tissue level: crude OR = 5.08, 95% CI = 2.10-12.24; p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for confounding factors, the risks of PI were significantly associated with implant sites (premolar vs. molar: adjusted OR [AOR] = 4.62, 95% CI = 1.74-12.24; p = 0.002) and implant types (bone level vs. tissue level: AOR = 6.46, 95% CI = 1.67-25.02; p = 0.007). The reason for dental extraction-that is, periodontitis or nonperiodontitis-was not significantly associated with PI. CONCLUSION: ARP reduces the incidence of periodontitis-related PI at extraction sites. To address the limitations of our study, consistent and prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Effect of alveolar ridge preservation on peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence: A multicenter, cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is a procedure with the aim to reduce bone resorption that occurs after tooth extraction, facilitating the following implant placement. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis around implants inserted in sites treated with ARP and to investigate possible risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received at least one dental implant inserted in a grafted socket were considered eligible for this study. Patients were recalled for a follow-up visit; medical history, clinical and demographic data were collected. Univariate logistic regression analyses have been performed for both implant-level and patient-level variables. Indeed, moderation analysis was used to investigate the indirect relationship between age and marginal bone level. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients who received 61 implants were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Thirty-three implants were classified as "healthy" (54.1%), 23 implants showed signs of peri-implant mucositis (37.7%), and 5 implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis (8.2%). Data analyzed at the patient level showed that 49% of the patients were healthy, 45.1% of the patients had mucositis and 5.9% of the patients were affected by peri-implantitis. Mandibular sites and type III grafted sockets showed a significant association with peri-implantitis; in addition, a history of periodontitis and an increase in age showed higher risks of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Implants inserted in grafted sockets showed favorable rates of healthy implants in the long term. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The ridge preservation procedures do not seem to increase the risk of developing mucositis or peri-implantitis.

Prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implantitis: a university based cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of peri-implantitis and identify risk and protective indicators of peri-implantitis in a population that underwent implant therapy in a university dental clinic. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Randomly selected patients from a postgraduate university dental clinic were invited to participate. Clinical and radiographic examinations were recorded. Peri-implantitis was defined as the presence of bleeding and/or suppuration on probing, probing depths of ≥ 6 mm, and bone loss ≥ 3 mm. Patient-, implant-, and bone- related factors were recorded and analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 355 dental implants placed in 108 patients and exhibiting at least 1 year loading time were included. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 21.3% at patient-level, while 10.7% at implant-level. Simultaneous guided bone regeneration (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.07-7.12, P = .035), recurrent periodontitis (OR 3.11, 95% CI 1.02-9.45, P = .045) and significant medical history (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.08-7.59, P = .034) were identified as risk indicators for peri-implantitis. The mean peri-implant bone loss was estimated to be 2.18 ± 1.57 mm for the total number of implants, whereas implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis demonstrated 4.42 ± 1.12 mm in a time period between 12 to 177 months. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the prevalence of peri-implantitis in a cohort receiving dental implant therapy at a university dental clinic was 10.7% at implant level and 21.3% at patient level. Patient-reported systemic comorbidities and recurrent periodontitis as well as implants placed in ridge augmented sites were associated with greater risk of peri-implantitis.

The Incidence of Retrograde Peri-Implantitis in a Single University Dental Hospital Training Center: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background and objective: Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a periapical radiolucent lesion developed around the implant apex. This study aimed to investigate the Incidence of RPI in a single university dental hospital training center. Materials and Methods: All records of patients who received single Implants between 2016-2020 were screened. For cases that met inclusion criteria, clinical and radiographic data were analyzed. Results: A total of 215 were included and categorized as follows, Category A: implants were placed next to endodontically treated teeth (n = 58, 27%); category B, implants placed at the sites with previous endodontic involvement within 6 months of tooth extraction (n = 25, 11.6%); Category AB: implants placed at sites that fulfill the criteria of groups A and B (n = 18, 8.4%); and Category C: Implants that were placed next to vital teeth and at a site with no previous endodontic treatment or a site that was allowed to heal for more than six (n = 114, 53%). Categories A, B and AB served as the endodontically involved (EI) group, while category C served as non- endodontically involved (NEI) group. Only two sites (0.9%) were confirmed as RPI, both from group A (3.4%). Comparing all groups studied showed no statistically significant difference in RPI incidence. Conclusions: The incidence of RPI is low; however, endodontically treated teeth with periapical lesions (PALs) next to an implant site could contribute to RPI.

The influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed in the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases (finished on November 30, 2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA statement. Prospective cohort studies that evaluate the incidence of peri-implantitis in smokers and non-smokers were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles, and abstracts, did the full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. The results were summarized through random-effects meta-analyses. The GRADE method was used to determine the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies with 702 patients and 1959 implants were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers for the risk of peri-implantitis in the implant-based (p < .0001) and patient-based analysis (p = .003). A strong association between smoking and the risk for peri-implantitis was verified at the implant level (RR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.46-1.85) and the patient level (RR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.42-5.50). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that smoking is associated with peri-implantitis compared to non-smoking at the patient and implant levels.

[A retrospective cohort study of risk factors for prevalence of implant biological complications].

PURPOSE: To analyze the risk factors of biological complications after implant-fixed denture restoration. METHODS: Seven hundred and twenty-five implants were placed between March 2012 and March 2016. Follow-up period was 5 to 9 years. The implant mucosal index (IMI) and implant marginal bone loss (MBL) were measured at 3 months-1 year, 2-3 years, 4-5 years, 6-7 years and 8-9 years after restoration. The prevalence and risk factors of peri-implantitis and mucositis were analyzed. SPSS 28.0 software package was used to analyze the date. RESULTS: The implant survival rate of 5 years was 98.7%. The prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis were 37.5% and 8.3% at 8 to 9 years. Smoking, periodontitis, narrow diameter, rough neck , anterior location, bone augmentation caused higher prevalence of peri-implantitis or mucositis (P＜0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, periodontitis, implant diameter, implant design, implant location and bone augmentation are the risk factors of implant biological complications.

The lack of keratinized mucosa as a risk factor for peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to investigate the effect of the lack of keratinized mucosa on the risk of peri-implantitis, while also accounting for possible confounding factors. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus, including human studies that assessed the presence and width of keratinized mucosa in relation to the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Twenty-two articles were included, and 16 cross-sectional studies we meta-analyzed. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 6.68-62.3% on patient-level and 4.5-58.1% on implant-level. The overall analysis indicated that the lack of keratinized mucosa was associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (OR = 2.78, 95% CI 2.07-3.74, p < 0.00001). Similar results were shown when subgroup analyses were performed, including studies with a similar case definition of peri-implantitis (Marginal Bone Loss, MBL ≥ 2 mm) (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 1.41-2.73, p < 0.0001), fixed prostheses only (OR = 2.82, 95% CI 1.85-4.28, p < 0.00001), patients under regular implant maintenance (OR = 2.08, 95% CI 1.41-3.08, p = 0.0002), and studies adjusting for other variables (OR = 3.68, 95% CI 2.32-5.82, p = 0.007). Thus, the lack of keratinized mucosa is a risk factor that increases the prevalence of peri-implantitis and should be accounted for when placing dental implants.

The use of autologous bone for augmentation procedures leads to low prevalence of peri-implantitis-a retrospective study over a 20-year period.

The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants inserted into pristine bone (control) to implants where autologous bone was used for grafting procedures (study). All patients who underwent implant surgery during a 20 years interval by one maxillofacial implant surgeon and received a prosthodontic rehabilitation afterwards were eligible for inclusion in the study. Periimplant bone resorption and periimplant disease were assessed. Of 421 patients 384 (91.2%) patients responded to a recall after having been treated over a 20-year period by one maxillofacial surgeon and several dentists. A total of 110 patients had 239 implants in pristine bone, and 274 patients had 607 implants placed in combination with autologous bone grafting procedures. Mean time in function was 74 months (range 15-236 months). In all, 342 implants (34.8%) were in function for longer than 7 years. A total of 64 implant sites (7.6%) in 39 patients (10.2%) showed signs of peri-implant mucositis. In addition, 17 implants (2.0%) in 14 patients (3.6%) revealed signs of peri-implantitis, of which five implants were in the control group (2.09%) whereas 12 implants were in the study group (1.98%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.8405). More than half of the patients with peri-implantitis had a history of periodontitis. Three implants were lost due to peri-implantitis and four implants failed for other reasons, resulting in an overall success rate of 99.2% in 846 implants. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study it seems that the use of autologous bone still is a relevant option when performing augmentation procedures because of the low prevalence of peri-implantitis.

Primordial and primary prevention of peri-implant diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the efficacy of risk factor control to prevent the occurrence of peri-implant diseases (PIDs) in adult patients awaiting dental implant rehabilitation (primordial prevention) or in patients with dental implants surrounded by healthy peri-implant tissues (primary prevention). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was performed without any time limit on different databases up to August 2022. Interventional and observational studies with at least 6 months of follow-up were considered. The occurrence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis was the primary outcome. Pooled data analyses were performed using random effect models according to the type of risk factor and outcome. RESULTS: Overall, 48 studies were selected. None assessed the efficacy of primordial preventive interventions for PIDs. Indirect evidence on the primary prevention of PID indicated that diabetic patients with dental implants and good glycaemic control have a significantly lower risk of peri-implantitis (odds ratio [OR] = 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03-0.96; I2 : 0%), and lower marginal bone level (MBL) changes (OR = -0.36 mm; 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.07; I2 : 95%) compared to diabetic patients with poor glycaemic control. Patients attending supportive periodontal/peri-implant care (SPC) regularly have a lower risk of overall PIDs (OR = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.24-0.75; I2 : 57%) and peri-implantitis compared to irregular attendees. The risk of dental implant failure (OR = 3.76; 95% CI: 1.50-9.45; I2 : 0%) appears to be greater under irregular or no SPC than regular SPC. Implants sites with augmented peri-implant keratinized mucosa (PIKM) show lower peri-implant inflammation (SMD = -1.18; 95% CI: -1.85 to -0.51; I2 : 69%) and lower MBL changes (MD = -0.25; 95% CI: -0.45 to -0.05; I2 : 62%) compared to dental implants with PIKM deficiency. Studies on smoking cessation and oral hygiene behaviors were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of available evidence, the present findings indicate that in patients with diabetes, glycaemic control should be promoted to avoid peri-implantitis development. The primary prevention of peri-implantitis should involve regular SPC. PIKM augmentation procedures, where a PIKM deficiency exists, may favour the control of peri-implant inflammation and the stability of MBL. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of smoking cessation and oral hygiene behaviours, as well as the implementation of standardized primordial and primary prevention protocols for PIDs.

Prevalence and risk of peri-implant diseases based on the type of prosthetic restoration: A retrospective study after 17 to 23 years.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Information on the epidemiology and etiopathology of peri-implant diseases in reference to prostheses is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to analyze the prevalence and risk of peri-implant diseases based on the type of prosthesis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 274 implants in 106 patients were evaluated by clinical and radiological examination. Peri-implant mucositis was defined by bleeding on probing, whereas peri-implantitis was defined by additional bone loss ≥1.5 mm since seating of the definitive prosthesis. Prosthetic design and anamnestic risk factors were assessed in a regression analysis, whereas clinical and radiological differences between the prosthesis groups were compared by the Pearson chi-squared test (α=.05 for all procedures). RESULTS: The median observation period was 18 years. Seventy-two implants were restored with single crowns, 138 implants with fixed partial dentures, and 64 implants with removable prostheses. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed more often in implants supporting fixed partial dentures (42.8%), whereas peri-implantitis was found more frequently in implants supporting removable prostheses (31.3%) (overall distribution pattern: P<.001). The type of prosthetic restoration was confirmed to be an independent prognostic risk factor regarding peri-implant diseases (P=.005). Additionally, increased bone loss was found with implant-supported removable prostheses, regardless of peri-implantitis (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The type of prosthetic restoration was identified as an independent risk factor for the development of peri-implant diseases. Particularly, implants supporting double crown-retained removable prostheses might be at risk.

Correlation between Diabetes Mellitus and Peri-implantitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Osseo-integrated implants provide effective treatment results for edentulous patients. However, despite the high success and survival rates of dental implants, several factors, such as poor oral hygiene and a history of periodontal disease, and systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, could influence the outcome of the treatment. In fact, poor glycemic control can affect the healing process. Diabetes mellitus is considered a relative contraindication for dental implant therapy due to the fact that the success rates of the implants seem to be lower in diabetic patients, even if there is no total agreement among the results reported in the literature. The analysis of peri-implant inflammation indices, bone loss around the implant and glycemic index can provide us with useful information on the relationship between glycaemia in diabetic patients and the course of peri-implantitis, as well as implant success in the short term. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to establish how peri-implant inflammation parameters vary in diabetic versus non-diabetic patients. METHODS: This review was conducted on the basis of PRISMA. The search was conducted by three independent reviewers searching for keywords in three databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web Of Sciences (WOS), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. RESULTS: A total of 1159 records were identified, and 11 articles were included in the qualitative analysis. CONCLUSION: The analysis of the extracted data from the included studies suggests that some periimplant inflammation indices, such as bleeding on probing and bone loss around the implant, appear to be increased in diabetic patients with glycometabolic decompensation, compared with control not affected by diabetes mellitus.

Long-term impact of patients' compliance to peri-implant maintenance therapy on the incidence of peri-implant diseases: An 11-year prospective follow-up clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate the incidence of peri-implant diseases and the associated risk factors during 11 years of peri-implant maintenance therapy (PIMT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample of 80 partially edentulous individuals rehabilitated with dental implants was invited to participate in a PIMT program (T1-prior to entering the PIMT program). After 11 years, 51 individuals remained regularly or irregularly adherent to PIMT (T2-last recall after 11 years) and were classified as regular (RC; n = 27) or irregular (IC; n = 24) compliers. Data of interest were analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: The incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis observed at T2 in the IC group (70.8% and 37.5%, respectively) were significantly higher than those observed in the RC group (37.0% and 11.1%, respectively). The incidence of peri-implant diseases was mostly attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors, as such: RC group-PM (p = 0.013); IC group-high plaque index (p < 0.001), irregular compliance (p < 0.001), the presence of PM (p = 0.015) and periodontitis (p < 0.039). CONCLUSION: Regular compliance during PIMT had a strong effect in minimizing the incidence of peri-implant diseases. Increasing regular dental visits and improving oral hygiene would provide benefits for preventing peri-implant diseases.

Clinical Outcomes of Metal-Ceramic versus Metal-Acrylic Resin Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prostheses: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of metal-ceramic vs metal-acrylic resin implant-supported fixed complete denture prostheses (IFCDPs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature database search was conducted in the CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Additionally, a manual search of the literature was performed. Studies conducted in edentulous human subjects comparing clinical outcomes of metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs to those of metal-ceramic IFCDPs were included if quantitative outcomes for the following variables were reported: implant failure, prosthetic failure, incidence of peri-implantitis, incidence of peri-implant mucositis, incidence of peri-implant mucosal recession, prosthetic complications, and any patient-centered outcomes. Data from included studies were pooled to estimate effect size. RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria. A quantitative analysis was possible for risk of implant failure, prosthesis failure, and incidence of peri-implantitis. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant differences in the risk of implant or prosthesis failure between the two groups. However, meta-analysis showed a significantly greater risk of developing peri-implantitis at the implant level in the metal-acrylic group when compared to the metal-ceramic group (risk difference = 0.069; 95% CI = 0.028 to 0.06; P = .001; fixed-effects model). Furthermore, descriptive analysis of the literature indicated a higher incidence of other biologic complications such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implant mucosal recession, as well as prosthetic complications such as abrasion and veneer fracture, in metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that a higher incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications, including a higher risk of peri-implantitis, are present with metal-acrylic resin IFCDPs compared to metal-ceramic IFCDPs.

Effectiveness of Supportive Care in the Prevention of Peri-implant Diseases in Brånemark Protocol Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) on peri-implant disease prevention. A total of 63 rehabilitated patients with 504 implants were selected with both maxillary and mandibular Brånemark-type protocols (all-on-four system) placed between 2004 and 2014 in a private practice with 5 to 15 years of follow-up. Study participants were divided into those who adhered to SPT with regular intervals of two or more times a year (Group 1) and those with irregular intervals with more than 1 year without attending SPT (Group 2). The implants placed were evaluated clinically and radiographically to assess peri-implant diseases. The prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis in the total population was 64.7% (326 implants) and 3.7% (19 implants), respectively. Group 2 had higher rates of mucositis (181 implants) and peri-implantitis (16 implants) than Group 1 (145 and 3 implants, respectively) (P < .05). The odds ratio for peri-implantitis in Group 2 was 7.1. The results suggest that patients who regularly received SPT had lower chances of developing peri-implant diseases.