Treatment of peri-implantitis with a flapless surgical access combined with implant surface decontamination and adjunctive systemic antibiotics: A retrospective case series study.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of a flapless surgical approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis and to explore the factors influencing its outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present retrospective study evaluated patients with at least one implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated with a flapless surgical access, with or without systemic antimicrobials, curettage and, when needed, prostheses modification. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed at baseline and at 3 months and at least 12 months. The primary outcome was disease resolution (≤1 bleeding sites, probing depth [PD] ≤5 mm, no bone loss >0.5 mm). Multilevel regression analyses were used to identify predictors influencing the probability of attaining disease resolution. RESULTS: One hundred and seventeen patients with 338 implants were included. Disease resolution was attained in 54.4% of the 338 implants receiving flapless surgical access. At the end of the follow-up period, 111 patients (94.9%) with 295 implants (87.3%) did not require any further treatment, with 81.4% of these implants presenting PD ≤ 5 mm. History of periodontitis and PD at baseline were identified as negative predictors, while compliance with supportive peri-implant care, a machined surface and the adjunctive use of systemic azithromycin or metronidazole were identified as positive predictive factors for disease resolution. CONCLUSIONS: A flapless surgical approach led to disease resolution in 54.4% of the implants with peri-implantitis. Several risk/protective predictors for disease resolution were identified.

Do systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole during the non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment phase prevent the need for future surgical treatment? A retrospective long-term cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this retrospective long-term follow-up of a 3-month RCT was to assess whether non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment with adjunctive systemic antibiotics influenced the need for additional surgical treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in an aftercare programme following non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment, with or without systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole, were analysed. Data had previously been collected pre-treatment (T0) and 3 months after treatment (T1) and were additionally collected during subsequent aftercare visits, until the final assessment (T2). Primary outcome was the need for additional surgical peri-implantitis therapy during the aftercare programme, analysed via Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Secondary outcomes involved clinical parameters, assessed using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (22 AB- group, 23 AB+ group) were included. The mean follow-up time between T1 and T2 was 35.9 months (SD = 21.0). 73.9% of the AB+ group and 50.0% of the AB- group did not receive additional surgical therapy (log-rank test, p = .110). The adjusted Cox regression model did not provide a significant result for antibiotics (ß = .441, 95% CI = 0.159-1.220, p = .115). Univariable regression analysis highlighted the influence of baseline peri-implant pocket depth on the need for surgical treatment (ß = 1.446, 95% CI = 1.035-2.020, p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: Systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole administered during non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment do not seem to prevent the need for additional surgical therapy in the long term, during a structured aftercare programme.

Systemic antibiotics in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To study the clinical, radiographic and microbiological outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with or without adjunctive systemic antibiotics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four patients (113 implants) with peri-implantitis were randomized into three groups (A, amoxicillin and metronidazole; B, phenoxymethylpenicillin and metronidazole; or C, placebo). Treatment included resective surgery and implant surface decontamination with adjunctive antibiotics or placebo. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and marginal bone level (MBL) stability. Secondary outcomes were treatment success (defined as PPD ≤ 5 mm, bleeding on probing [BOP] ≤ 1site, absence of suppuration on probing [SOP] and absence of progressive bone loss of >0.5 mm), changes in BOP/SOP, mucosal recession (REC), clinical attachment level (CAL), bacterial levels and adverse events. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 12 months. The impact of potential prognostic indicators on treatment success was evaluated using multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (104 implants) completed the study. All groups showed clinical and radiological improvements over time. Statistically significant differences were observed between groups for MBL stability (A = 97%, B = 89%, C = 76%), treatment success (A = 68%, B = 66%, C = 28%) and bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Tannerella forsythia, favouring antibiotics compared to placebo. Multiple regression identified antibiotic use as potential prognostic indicator for treatment success. Gastrointestinal disorders were the most reported adverse events in the antibiotic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive systemic antibiotics resulted in additional improvements in MBL stability. However, the potential clinical benefits of antibiotics need to be carefully balanced against the risk of adverse events and possible antibiotic resistance.

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

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

Reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implant defects with ribose cross-linked collagen matrix and crosslinked hyaluronic acid - a prospective case series.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of ribose-crosslinked collagen (RCLC) matrices functionalized by crosslinked hyaluronic acid (xHya) for reconstructive treatment of class I and III (b-c) peri-implantitis lesions in a transmucosal healing mode. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirteen patients presenting with 15 implants were included in this prospective case series. Upon flap reflection, the implants were thoroughly decontaminated employing glycine powder air polishing and adjunctive sodium hypochlorite. For defect augmentation, xHyA was administered to the bony defect walls, exposed implant surfaces, and the RCLC matrix before defect grafting. The full-thickness flap was readapted and sutured around the implant neck for transmucosal healing. Baseline and respective values at the 12 months post-op evaluation were recorded for the clinical parameters peri-implant probing depth (PPD), buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) and bleeding on probing (BoP). Furthermore, two independent investigators analyzed radiographic changes in the defect area. The mean changes for all variables were analyzed with a paired t-test. RESULTS: The initial mean PPD was 7.2 ± 1.9 mm, and BoP was present in 63% of sites. After 12 months, PPD at the latest visit was 3.2 ± 0.66 mm, which amounted to a respective 3.9 ± 1.85 mm reduction, while the BoP frequency dropped to 10% at all sites. Radiographic bone fill was accomplished for 62.8% of the former defect area, accompanied by a mean MBL gain of 1.02 mm around the treated implants (all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this case series, we conclude that the proposed treatment sequence substantially improved peri-implant defects and offered a simplified but predictive technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Reconstructive treatment approaches for peri-implantitis are effective but remain non-superior to open flap debridement. Further research on novel biomaterial combinations that may improve reconstructive treatment outcomes are warranted. Ribose-crosslinked collagen matrices biofunctionalized by hyaluronic acid used in this study yield improved clinical and radiographic peri-implant conditions after 12 months.

Minimal invasiveness in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis defects.

Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathologic condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, clinically characterized by increased peri-implant probing pocket depth and progressive loss of supporting bone. Consequently, to arrest further disease progression and to increase the chance to obtain re-osseointegration, surgical reconstructive procedures have been adopted. In particular, following a paradigm gathered from periodontal therapy, recent protocols have underlined the importance of a minimally invasive approach to optimize the outcomes of therapy while minimizing the risks of postoperative complications. The present review summarizes the level of evidence on the surgical reconstructive protocols focusing on the new approaches aiming to minimize surgical trauma and patients' postoperative discomfort, underlining the pros and cons of each treatment modality.

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

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

Surface decontamination of explanted peri-implantitis-affected implants.

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

Photo/mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination approaches in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive/alternative photo/mechanical and physical implant-surface decontamination approaches compared to standard instrumentation in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials investigating the efficacy of adjunctive or alternative photo/mechanical/physical measures for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment without (PICOS 1) or with (PICOS 2) additional decontamination methods performed in test and control groups with changing inflammation parameters were covered. Changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleeding index, or bleeding on probing [BOP]), suppuration, and probing depth (PD) were considered the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Six articles describing five original RCTs were eligible for analysis. Based on two RCTs, the adjunctive/alternative use of air polishing with glycine or erythritol powder did not improve BOP reduction compared to standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). Based on one RCT, alternative use of titanium brushes resulted in significantly higher BOP reduction compared to either air polishing or standard instrumentation (PICOS 1). During reconstructive therapy and as an adjunct to implantoplasty, use of a titanium brush did not have any benefit on the BOP and mean PD reductions compared to the control group (i.e., implantoplasty + mechanical and chemical implant surface decontamination; one RCT; PICOS 2). Use of the Er:YAG laser resulted in significantly higher PD reduction after 6 months (one RCT), whereas no difference between the test and respective controls could be detected after 1 and 2 years (one RCT). Additionally, the use of the Er:YAG laser was not associated with improved BOP reductions over respective controls (two RCTs; PICOS 2). CONCLUSIONS: Owing to the limited available data, clinical efficacy of photo/mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis therapy is inconclusive. However, titanium brushes may be beneficial in reducing signs of inflammation.

Supportive care for the prevention of disease recurrence/progression following peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of supportive care provision, frequency and protocol in patients treated for peri-implantitis, as reported in prospective and retrospective studies of at least 3-years duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of three electronic databases was undertaken up to 21 July 2022 and supplemented by hand-search to identify studies that included participants treated for peri-implantitis and followed for at least 3 years. Owing to high heterogeneity, a meta-analysis was not appropriate, and therefore, data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. PRISMA guidelines for reporting were followed. RESULTS: The search identified 2596 studies. Of 270 records selected during screening, 255 were excluded through independent review and 15 studies (10 prospective and 5 retrospective, with at least 20 patients) were retained for qualitative assessments. Study designs, population characteristics, supportive care protocols and reported outcomes varied markedly. Thirteen of the 15 studies had low risk of bias. Supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) following different surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols and with recall intervals varying between 2 months and annually resulted in peri-implant tissue stability (no disease recurrence or progression) ranging from 24.4% to 100% at patient level and from 28.3% to 100% at implant level. Sevenhundred and eighty-five patients with 790 implants were included in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of SPIC following peri-implantitis therapy may prevent disease recurrence or progression. Insufficient evidence is available to identify (i) a specific supportive care protocol for secondary prevention of peri-implantitis, (ii) the effect of adjunctive local antiseptic agents in the secondary prevention of peri-implantitis and (iii) the impact of frequency of supportive care measures. Prospective, randomised, controlled studies designed to evaluate supportive care protocols are needed in future.

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

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

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri-implantitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of bone reconstructive procedures for the reduction of probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and suppuration in peri-implantitis-related bone defects at ≥12-month follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared bone reconstructive therapies to access flap surgery (AFS) (Focused Question-FQ 1), and RCTs, CCTs, and prospective case series that assessed the efficacy of reconstructive therapies (FQ 2). Meta-analysis was performed for FQ1 when more than three studies were identified, while for FQ2 a network was drawn based on RCTs with common treatment arms. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were identified for FQ1 while five RCTs and six prospective case series for FQ2. There was no significant difference in PPD change between AFS and reconstructive surgery (-0.387; p = .325) at 12 months. Furthermore, no clear differences in terms of PPD and BOP changes resulted from the different reconstructive therapies included in the network. Only a small percentage of treated cases with any modality achieved peri-implantitis resolution, as defined by different composite outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive surgery does not offer significant improvements in peri-implant clinical parameters as compared to AFS at 12 months. It was not possible to establish a hierarchy of efficacy among the different biomaterials employed for reconstructive surgery.

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

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

Adjunctive locally and systemically delivered antimicrobials during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: "In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with adjunctive systemic or local antimicrobials, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in terms of pocket probing depth reduction, as assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least 6 months of follow-up?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted. Reduction in mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was the primary outcome. Secondary clinical outcomes were changes in suppuration (%), changes in bleeding on probing (BOP) (%), marginal bone level changes (mm), disease resolution (%), and implant/prosthesis loss (%). Patient-reported outcome measures, possible adverse effects, and oral-health-related quality of life were also extracted if such data were available. RESULTS: Four RCTs assessing the use of locally (two RCTs) and systemically (two RCTs) administered antimicrobial adjuncts to surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, with 6-36-month follow-up, were included. Because of the substantial heterogeneity of interventions between the studies, meta-analysis could not be performed. A reduction in the mean PPD was observed following all the involved surgical treatments, irrespective of the addition of antimicrobials. Except for the effect of systemic antimicrobials on marginal bone level changes and local antimicrobials on BOP, the effect of systemic and local antimicrobials was equivocal for all secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited available evidence, the adjunctive use of the currently tested systemic or local antimicrobials during surgical therapy, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in patients with peri-implantitis does not seem to improve the clinical efficacy. With regard the use of systemic antimicrobials, only 50% of the cases showed disease resolution after 1 year. There is a lack of studies that consider the sole use of local antimicrobials. Therefore, their true effect remains unclear.

The efficacy of implant surface decontamination using chemicals during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: "In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with chemical surface decontamination of implant surfaces in comparison with surgical therapy alone or surgery with placebo decontamination, on probing pocket depth (PD) reduction and bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration on probing (SoP), in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six databases were searched from their inception up to 20 May 2022. Data on clinical outcome variables were pooled and analysed using mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs), or risk differences (RDs) as appropriate, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals (PIs) in the case of significant heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were determined as changes in PD and BoP/SoP. Secondary outcomes were radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL), implant loss, and disease resolution. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022325603. RESULTS: Six RCTs-two with moderate, three with high, and one with low risk of bias (RoB)-were included. These studies test the adjunctive effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT), chlorhexidine (CHX), and administration of local antibiotics (LAbs) during surgery on the clinical outcome. In a single 12-month study, the adjunctive use of local antibiotics showed a clinically relevant reduction of PD [MD = 1.44; 95%CI (0.40 to -2.48)] and MBL [MD = 1.21; 95%CI (0.44-1.98); one trial, 32 participants]. PDT showed a small but significant reduction in BoP [MD = 7.41%; 95%CI (0.81-14.00); p = 0.028; two trials; 42 participants]. Treatment with CHX resulted in no significant changes in PD, BoP, or MBL compared to placebo (saline solution). None of the interventions affected disease resolution and implant loss. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcome measures assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this systematic review and the meta-analysis, adjunctive use of chemicals such as PDT, CHX, and LAbs for surface decontamination during surgery of peri-implantitis cannot be recommended as superior to standard debridement procedures (mechanical debridement with or without saline).

Clinical, microbiological and biochemical impact of a supportive care protocol with an air-polishing device, after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: Randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) protocol after surgical therapy of peri-implantitis, combining ultrasonic mechanical debridement and glycine powder air polishing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty subjects diagnosed with peri-implantitis and treated by means of access flap were randomized 6 months later into two different SPIC groups: the test group combined a piezoelectric ultrasonic instrumentation with a specific implant PEEK tip and glycine powder air polishing, while control group received the same ultrasonic instrumentation together with a rubber cup and a polishing paste. Patients were followed for 12 months, with intermediate SPIC visits every 3 months. Clinical, radiological, microbiological and biochemical outcome variables were registered and calculated. RESULTS: After 12 months of SPIC, probing depths (PD) showed a mean reduction of 0.33 ± 0.11 mm, with significant differences (p < .001) between the test (-0.84 ± 0.43 mm) and the control group (+0.18 ± 0.73 mm). Healthy peri-implant tissues defined by PD <5 mm, absence of BoP (or in only one site around the implant), and no additional bone loss (<0.5 mm), were observed at the final visit in 83% of the implants (87% in the test group and 80% in the control group, p = .255). No adverse events were reported by the subjects participating in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIC protocol including mechanical ultrasonic debridement and glycine powder air-polishing demonstrated significantly better efficacy in terms of PD reductions. A strict SPIC protocol can maintain for 1 year, or even improve, the results obtained after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

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

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

Effects of an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution as an adjunctive to air-powder abrasion in open-flap surface decontamination of implants failed for peri-implantitis: an ex vivo randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate ex vivo the efficacy of an amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution supplemented to surface debridement with air-powder abrasion in removing bacterial biofilm following open-flap decontamination of implants failed due to peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an ex vivo, single-blind, randomized, intra-subject investigation. Study population consisted of 20 subjects with at least three implants failed for peri-implantitis (in function for > 12 months and progressive bone loss exceeding 50%) to be explanted. For each patient, implants were randomly assigned to surface decontamination with sodium bicarbonate air-powder abrasion (test-group 1) or sodium bicarbonate air-powder abrasion supplemented by amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution (test-group 2) or untreated control group. Following open-flap surgery, untreated implants (control group) were explanted. Afterwards, test implants were decontaminated according to allocation and explanted. Microbiological analysis was expressed in colony-forming units (CFU/ml). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference in the concentrations of CFU/ml was found between implants of test-group 1 (63,018.18 ± 228,599.36) (p = 0.007) and implants of test-group 2 (260.00 ± 375.80) (p < 0.001) compared to untreated implants (control group) (86,846.15 ± 266,689.44). The concentration of CFU/ml on implant surfaces was lower in test-group 2 than in test-group 1, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The additional application of amino acid buffered hypochlorite solution seemed to improve the effectiveness of implant surface decontamination with air-powder abrasion following open-flap surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Lacking evidence on the most effective method for biofilm removal from contaminated implant surfaces, the present experimental study provides further information for clinicians and researchers.

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

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

Clinical considerations in the surgical management of peri-implantitis lesions in the esthetic zone.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of peri-implantitis is commonly associated to soft tissue changes as part of disease resolution. These changes may alter harmony in the esthetic area, and thus may negatively affect patient satisfaction. This technical note presents the key features that may lead to an unsatisfactory esthetic outcome when managing peri-implantitis in the anterior zone. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: It is essential to consider four pivotal elements in securing therapeutic success through the resolution of inflammation while maintaining esthetics: (1) patient-related factors, including patient willingness to treat and the smile line; (2) implant-related factors that influence implant position; (3) site-related factors related to defect configuration; and (4) prosthetic-related factors referred to the prosthetic emergence profile and the type of prosthesis. A comprehensive examination must be carried out preoperatively to assess the impact of the surgical treatment upon the esthetic outcomes. CONCLUSION: The clinician must be aware of the key features that condition the esthetic outcome when managing peri-implantitis.