Conventional diagnostic criteria for periodontal diseases (plaque-induced gingivitis and periodontitis).

This narrative review addresses conventional diagnostic criteria used in clinical practice to discriminate between periodontal health, gingivitis, and periodontitis. Visual examination of the color and texture of the periodontal tissues, assessment of plaque deposits, periodontal probing assessments, and diagnostic imaging enable the collation of information to make a periodontal diagnosis, followed by an appropriate treatment plan. The periodontal probe is an essential diagnostic tool to assess probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, and the degree of furcation involvement at multirooted teeth. When clinical signs and symptoms of periodontitis are identified, diagnostic imaging enables evaluation of the level and extent of bone destruction and bone defect morphology. The diagnostic process requires clinicians who are trained to evaluate, record, and interpret these measures. This narrative review focuses on conventional clinical diagnostic parameters which, despite their limitations, are considered the current standard of care.

Minimal invasiveness in lateral bone augmentation with simultaneous implant placement: A systematic review.

The presence of a peri-implant bone dehiscence (BD) or fenestration (BF) is a common finding after implant placement in a crest with a reduced bucco-lingual bone dimension. The presence of a residual BD is associated with a relevant incidence of peri-implant biological complications over time. Guided bone regeneration (GBR), performed at implant placement, is the most validated treatment to correct a BD. In the present systematic review, the evidence evaluating factors which could reduce the invasiveness of a GBR procedure with respect to patient-reported outcomes, intra- and post- surgical complications, was summarized. Factors included were: technical aspects, regenerative materials for GBR, and peri- and post-operative pharmacological regimens. The available evidence seems to indicate that the use of membrane fixation and flap passivation by means of a double flap incision technique may reduce the incidence of post-surgical complications. When feasible, the coronal advancement of the lingual flap is suggested. The use of a non-cross linked resorbable membrane positively impacts on patient discomfort. The adjunctive use of autogenous bone to a xenograft seems not to improve BD correction, but could increase patient discomfort. Systemic antibiotic administration after a GBR procedure does not seem to be justified in systemically healthy patients.

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.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty participants, with peri-implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change. RESULTS: All 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12-month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro-intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines. CONCLUSION: Similar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups. Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017).

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Patient benefits following implant treatment in partially and fully edentulous patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address patient benefits associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs), (b) improvement in orofacial function, and (c) preservation of orofacial tissues in partially and fully edentulous patients following provision of implant-retained/supported dental prostheses were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary of the 7th ITI Consensus Conference, taking place in 2023 in Lisbon, Portugal. RESULTS: Edentulous patients wearing complete dentures (CD) experience substantial improvements in overall dPROs and orofacial function following treatment with either complete implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP) or implant overdentures (IODs). With respect to dPROs, mandibular IODs retained by two implants are superior to IODs retained by one implant. However, increasing the number of implants beyond two, does not further improve dPROs. In fully edentulous patients, rehabilitation with CIFDP or IOD is recommended to benefit the preservation of alveolar bone and masseter muscle thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Completely edentulous patients benefit substantially when at least the mandible is restored using an CIFDP or an IOD compared to CD. In fully edentulous patients, implant prostheses are the best option for tooth replacement. The availability of this treatment modality should be actively promoted in all edentulous communities, including those with limited access and means.

Importance of keratinized mucosa around dental implants: Consensus report of group 1 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the literature on (i) the relevance of the presence of a minimum dimension of keratinized peri-implant mucosa (KPIM) to maintain the health and stability of peri-implant tissues, and; (ii) the surgical interventions and grafting materials used for augmenting the dimensions of the KPIM when there is a minimal amount or absence of it. MATERIAL & METHODS: Two systematic reviews complemented by expert opinion from workshop group participants served as the basis of the consensus statements, implications for clinical practice and future research, and were approved in plenary session by all workshop participants. RESULTS: Thirty-four consensus statements, eight implications for clinical practice, and 13 implications for future research were discussed and agreed upon. There is no consistent data on the incidence of peri-implant mucositis relative to the presence or absence of KPIM. However, reduced KPIM width is associated with increased biofilm accumulation, soft-tissue inflammation, greater patient discomfort, mucosal recession, marginal bone loss and an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis. Free gingival autogenous grafts were considered the standard of care surgical intervention to effectively increase the width of KPIM. However, substitutes of xenogeneic origin may be an alternative to autogenous tissues, since similar results when compared to connective tissue grafts were reported. CONCLUSION: Presence of a minimum width of KPIM should be assessed routinely in patients with implant supported restorations, and when associated with pathological changes in the peri-implant mucosa, its dimensions may be surgically increased using autogenous grafts or soft-tissue substitutes with evidence of proven efficacy.

Occurrence, associated factors and soft tissue reconstructive therapy for buccal soft tissue dehiscence at dental implants: Consensus report of group 3 of the DGI/SEPA/Osteology Workshop.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS: Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION: Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations.

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

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

Peri-implantitis: Summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of implant and prosthetic components on peri-implant tissue health. A further aim was to evaluate peri-implant soft-tissue changes following surgical peri-implantitis treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Group discussions based on two systematic reviews (SR) and one critical review (CR) addressed (i) the influence of implant material and surface characteristics on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis, (ii) implant and restorative design elements and the associated risk for peri-implant diseases, and (iii) peri-implant soft-tissue level changes and patient-reported outcomes following peri-implantitis treatment. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were discussed within the group and approved during plenary sessions. RESULTS: Data from preclinical in vivo studies demonstrated significantly greater radiographic bone loss and increased area of inflammatory infiltrate at modified compared to non-modified surface implants. Limited clinical data did not show differences between modified and non-modified implant surfaces in incidence or progression of peri-implantitis (SR). There is some evidence that restricted accessibility for oral hygiene and an emergence angle of >30 combined with a convex emergence profile of the abutment/prosthesis are associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (CR). Reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis resulted in significantly less soft-tissue recession, when compared with access flap. Implantoplasty or the adjunctive use of a barrier membrane had no influence on the extent of peri-implant mucosal recession following peri-implantitis treatment (SR). CONCLUSIONS: Prosthesis overcontouring and impaired access to oral hygiene procedures increases risk for peri-implantitis. When indicated, reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment may facilitate the maintenance of post-operative peri-implant soft-tissue levels.

Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA-a tool for preventing peri-implant disease.

OBJECTIVE: This treatment concept paper introduces a risk assessment tool, the Implant Disease Risk Assessment, (IDRA) which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The functional risk assessment diagram was constructed incorporating eight parameters, each with documented evidence for an association with peri-implantitis. RESULTS: The eight vectors of the diagram include (1) assessment of a history of periodontitis (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) (3) number of teeth/implants with probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm (4) the ratio of periodontal bone loss (evaluated from a radiograph) divided by the patient's age (5) periodontitis susceptibility as described by the staging and grading categories from the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (Journal of Periodontology, 89 Suppl 1, S159-S172, 2018) (6) the frequency/compliance with supportive periodontal therapy (7) the distance in mm from the restorative margin of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest and (8) prosthesis-related factors including cleanability and fit of the implant-supported prosthesis. CONCLUSION: The combination of these factors in a risk assessment tool, IDRA, may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for development of peri-implantitis.

Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.

European Association for Osseointegration Delphi study on the trends in Implant Dentistry in Europe for the year 2030.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential trends for the year 2030 in dental implant dentistry in Europe using the Delphi methodology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A steering committee and a management team of experts in implant dentistry were created and validated a questionnaire including 60 questions, divided in eight topics. The survey was conducted in two rounds using an anonymous questionnaire, which provided the participants in the second round with the results of the first. Each question had three possible answers, and the results were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: A total of 138 experts were invited to participate in the survey. From all the invited experts, 52 answered in both the first and second rounds. Three different consensus categories were established based on the percentage of agreement: no consensus (<65%); moderate consensus (65%-85%); and high consensus (≥86%). Within the topic categories, a consensus was reached (mainly moderate consensus) for the majority of questions discussed among experts during a face to face consensus meeting. However, consensus was not reached for a small number of questions/topics. CONCLUSIONS: About 82% of the questions reached consensus. The consensus points towards a lower number of implants to replace chewing units, with implants surfaces made of bioactive materials with reduced micro-roughness using mainly customized abutments with polished surfaces and an internal implant-abutment connection (85%). CBCT-3D technologies will be the main tool for pre-surgical implant placement diagnosis together with direct digital restorative workflows. There will be an increase in the incidence of peri-implantitis, although there will be more efficient interventions its treatment and prevention.

Peri-implant mucositis.

OBJECTIVES: This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. FINDINGS: Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.

A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals. RESULTS: The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively. CONCLUSION: Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients.

Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 3-Aesthetics of peri-implant soft tissues.

OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation had a focus on the influence of vertical implant placement on papilla height at single implants adjacent to teeth and on the inter-implant mucosa fill at two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the consensus meeting. Due to the heterogeneity among the studies with regard to study design, study population, method of assessment, meta-analyses were not possible. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert group. RESULTS: The systematic review about single-tooth implants included a total of 12 studies demonstrating that the vertical distance from the crestal bone level to the base of the interproximal contact point varied considerably from 2 mm up to 11 mm, and a partial or complete papilla fill was reached in 56.5% to 100% of the cases. For the systematic review regarding two adjacent implants, only four studies reported on horizontal inter-implant distances which ranged between 2.0 and 4.0 mm. More than half of the papilla presence was indicated in 21% to 88.5% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that for single-tooth implants, the papilla height between an implant and a tooth is predominantly dependent on the clinical attachment level of the tooth. In cases with two adjacent implants, it was concluded that it is not possible to define the optimal horizontal distance between two adjacent implants restored with fixed dental prosthess.