Immune cell composition and inflammatory profile of human peri-implantitis and periodontitis lesions.

Peri-implantitis (PI) and periodontitis (PD) are common oral inflammatory diseases, which seem to exhibit critical differences in some of their molecular features. Thus, we assessed the immune cell composition of PI and PD lesions and the corresponding inflammatory profile in soft tissues and crevicular fluid. PI, PD, and control patients were recruited (n = 62), and soft tissue biopsies were collected during surgery. Crevicular fluid around implant or tooth was collected. The proportions of major immune cell populations in tissues were analyzed by flow cytometry, and the inflammatory profile in tissue and crevicular fluid by a multiplex immunoassay. No significant difference was seen between PI and PD lesions in the proportions of immune cells. PI tissues showed an increased frequency of B cells in comparison with control tissues, along with higher levels of IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-4, and BAFF in tissue and crevicular fluid. Moreover, TNF-α, IL-17A, and BAFF were higher in PI tissues, but not in PD, than in control tissues. The immune cell composition did not differ significantly between PI and PD, but an enhanced inflammatory profile was seen in PI tissue. PI lesions were enriched in B cells, and displayed increased levels of IL-1ß, TNF-α, IL-4, and BAFF in both tissue and crevicular fluid.

Spectroscopic insights into peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: unveiling peri-implant crevicular fluid profiles using surface enhanced Raman scattering.

The precise identification and differentiation of peri-implant diseases, without the need for intrusive procedures, is crucial for the successful clinical treatment and overall durability of dental implants. This work introduces a novel approach that combines surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) spectroscopy with advanced chemometrics to analyse peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples. The primary purpose is to offer an unbiased evaluation of implant health. A detailed investigation was performed on PICF samples obtained from a cohort of patients exhibiting different levels of peri-implant health, including those with healthy implants, implants impacted by peri-implantitis, and implants with peri-implant mucositis. The obtained SERS spectra were analysed using canonical-powered partial least squares (CPPLS) to identify unique chemical characteristics associated with each inflammatory state. Significantly, our research findings unveil the presence of a common inflammatory SERS spectral pattern in cases of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis. Furthermore, the SERS-based scores obtained from CPPLS were combined with established clinical scores and subjected to a linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifier. Repeated double cross-validation was used to validate the method's capacity to discriminate different implant conditions. The integrated approach showcased high sensitivity and specificity and an overall balanced accuracy of 92%, demonstrating its potential to serve as a non-invasive diagnostic tool for real-time implant monitoring and early detection of inflammatory conditions.

Introduction to the Diagnostics in Periodontology and Implant Dentistry issue.

Chronic inflammatory periodontal disease and its related condition, peri-implant disease, are highly prevalent globally and require accurate and speedy diagnosis. The focus of this volume dedicated to diagnostics is to cover modern enhancements in accuracy, simplicity and speed. An international assortment of experts has been tasked with reviewing defined areas of current best practice as well innovation in the field of periodontitis and peri-implantitis diagnostics. Periodontitis and peri-implantitis are irreversible, chronic, cumulative conditions propagated by bacteria and host factors, which involve soft and hard tissue changes, and these changes are measured in the diagnostic process. Clinically relevant modifications to the healthy state are detected using clinical, radiological and laboratory or point of care testing, and these testing approaches are critically reviewed at length in this state-of-the-art resume of periodontal diagnostics.

Diagnostic methods/parameters to monitor peri-implant conditions.

The diagnostic accuracy of clinical parameters, including visual inspection and probing to monitor peri-implant conditions, has been regarded with skepticism. Scientific evidence pointed out that primary diagnostic tools (chairside) seem to be highly specific, while their sensitivity is lower compared with their use in monitoring periodontal stability. Nonetheless, given the association between pocket depth at teeth and implant sites and the aerobic/anaerobic nature of the microbiome, it seems plausible for pocket probing depth to be indicative of disease progression or tissue stability. In addition, understanding the inflammatory nature of peri-implant diseases, it seems reasonable to advocate that bleeding, erythema, ulceration, and suppuration might be reliable indicators of pathology. Nevertheless, single spots of bleeding on probing may not reflect peri-implant disease, since implants are prone to exhibit bleeding related to probing force. On the other side, bleeding in smokers lacks sensitivity owing to the decreased angiogenic activity. Hence, the use of dichotomous scales on bleeding in the general population, in contrast to indices that feature profuseness and time after probing, might lead to false positive diagnoses. The definitive distinction between peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, though, relies upon the radiographic evidence of progressive bone loss that can be assessed by means of two- and three-dimensional methods. Accordingly, the objective of this review is to evaluate the existing clinical and radiographic parameters/methods to monitor peri-implant conditions.

The use of patient-related outcomes (PRO) and experience (PRE) in assessing the periodontal and implant patient.

The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence with regard to behavioral and psychosocial assessment of the periodontitis patient, the candidate for implant therapy, and the peri-implantitis patient. Periodontitis has an adverse effect on quality of life and its treatment can lead to significant improvements experienced by the patient. The latter is true for rehabilitation with dental implants, although patients harbor diverse expectations and perceptions of implant therapy, which can often interfere with satisfaction and/or influence long-term success. A thorough behavioral assessment of the candidate for implant therapy is essential, which should include, perceptions, expectations, as well as risk for behavioral disorders. Remedial action is essential to correct misperceptions and any identified risks. Finally, patients have limited awareness of limited ability to identify signs of peri-implantitis. The diagnosis of peri-implantitis can be a cause of significant distress, resentment, and loss of trust to the treatment and the caregivers. Despite documented value in clinical research, currently available instruments assessing patient-reported outcomes have little application in day-to-day clinical practice. Face-to-face patient to doctor open-ended communication remains the most effective way to comprehensively establish the long-term "therapeutic alliance" essential for the long journey for the periodontitis patient.

Tooth- and implant-related prognostic factors in treatment planning.

Following a comprehensive patient examination, including the assessment of periodontal and peri-implant diseases as well as considering the patient's needs, a pretherapeutic prognosis for each tooth and implant is given. Teeth and implants with a secure pretherapeutic prognosis require simple procedures and may be regarded as secure abutments for function and with a doubtful pretherapeutic prognosis usually need a comprehensive therapy. Such teeth and implants must be brought into the category with a secure prognosis by means of additional therapy such as endodontic, restorative, and surgical procedures. Teeth and implants with a hopeless pretherapeutic prognosis should be extracted/explanted during the initial phase of cause-related therapy (i.e., infection control). For example, teeth with vertical root fracture or unrestorable caries and implants with mobility or unrestorable malposition fall into the category of hopeless units. The primary goal of periodontal and peri-implant therapy should be to arrest disease progression. The latest consensus statement highlights that periodontitis can be successfully controlled and treated teeth can be retained for life. Nevertheless, for patients with uncontrolled contributing factors, the endpoints might not always be achievable, and low disease activity may be an acceptable therapeutic goal. Similarly, the management of peri-implantitis frequently requires surgical intervention following nonsurgical therapy due to incomplete treatment outcomes. Different surgical modalities can be effective and lead to significant improvement; however, achieving complete resolution of peri-implantitis is challenging, not always predictable, and can depend on multiple baseline factors. Therefore, this review aims at summarising available evidence on the rationale for incorporating systemic, lifestyle-related, clinical, and radiographic prognostic factors into treatment planning of patients diagnosed with periodontal and peri-implant diseases.

Diagnostic measures for monitoring and follow-up in periodontology and implant dentistry.

This review discusses the role of diagnostic measures in the lifelong management of periodontal disease and peri-implant complications. After active treatment, these conditions require regular monitoring of the supporting structures of teeth and dental implants to assess bone and soft tissue health over time. Several clinical measures have been developed for the routine assessment of periodontal and peri-implant tissues, including periodontal and peri-implant probing, bleeding on probing, intraoral radiography, biomarker analysis, and microbiological testing. This review highlights the evolution of diagnostic practices, integrating traditional methods with emerging technologies such as resonance frequency analysis and ultrasound imaging to provide a holistic view of peri-implant health assessment. In addition to objective measurements, patient risk factors are considered. The goals of periodontal and peri-implant maintenance are to control disease activity and stabilize tissues through supportive care, which includes diagnostic measures at follow-up visits. This enables clinicians to monitor treatment outcomes, assess health status, and detect recurrence or progression early through routine evaluation, allowing additional interventions, including adjustment of supportive therapy intervals, to further improve and maintain periodontal and peri-implant stability over time.

Radiographic assessment of the peri-implant site.

While peri-implant mucositis relies solely on clinical parameters, radiological assessment becomes indispensable for diagnosing peri-implantitis. Intraoral radiography, with its simplicity of application, low radiation exposure, and adequate representation of peri-implant structures, stands out as the standard of care for both immediate and follow-up assessments. Standardization by custom-made radiologic splints allows for excellent comparability with previous images and allows for the determination of even small changes in contour and density of the peri-implant bone. Furthermore, other radiographic modalities like panoramic radiography and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may provide useful features for specific patients and clinical cases while also showing innate limitations. Beyond the assessment of the marginal peri-implant bone level as the crucial parameter of clinical relevance, radiologic assessment may reveal various other findings related to the prosthetic restoration itself, the precision of its fit to the implant, and the peri-implant soft and hard tissues. Since such findings can be crucial for the assessment of peri-implant health and the implants' prognosis, a systematic diagnostic evaluation pathway for a thorough assessment is recommended to extract all relevant information from radiologic imaging. This article also provides an overview of the clinical and chronological indications for different imaging modalities in peri-implant issues.

Microbiome of periodontitis and peri-implantitis before and after therapy: Long-read 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.

AIMS: The microbial profiles of peri-implantitis and periodontitis (PT) are inconclusive. The controversies mainly arise from the differences in sampling sites, targeted gene fragment, and microbiome analysis techniques. The objective of this study was to explore the microbiomes of peri-implantitis (PI), control implants (CI), PT and control teeth (CT), and the microbial change of PI after nonsurgical treatment (PIAT). METHODS: Twenty-two patients diagnosed with both PT and peri-implantitis were recruited. Clinical periodontal parameters and radiographic bone levels were recorded. In each patient, the subgingival and submucosal plaque samples were collected from sites with PI, CI, PT, CT, and PIAT. Microbiome diversity was analyzed by high-throughput amplicon sequencing using full-length of 16S rRNA gene by next generation sequencing. RESULTS: The 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis revealed 512 OTUs in oral microbiome and 377 OTUs reached strain levels. The PI and PT groups possessed their own unique core microbiome. Treponema denticola was predominant in PI with probing depth of 8-10 mm. Interestingly, Thermovirga lienii DSM 17291 and Dialister invisus DSM 15470 were found to associate with PI. Nonsurgical treatment for peri-implantitis did not significantly alter the microbiome, except Rothia aeria. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests Treponemas species may play a pivotal role in peri-implantitis. Nonsurgical treatment did not exert a major influence on the peri-implantitis microbiome in short-term follow-up. PT and peri-implantitis possess the unique microbiome profiles, and different therapeutic strategies may be suggested in the future.

CXCL5/CXCL8 induces neutrophilic inflammation in peri-implantitis.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: This research aimed to examine the role of C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CXCL5) and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 8 (CXCL8; also known as IL-8) in neutrophilic inflammation triggered by peri-implantitis and to shed light on the underlying mechanisms that link them to the development of this condition. MATERIALS: This study included 40 patients who visited the Department of Periodontology at Kyungpook University Dental Hospital. They were divided into two groups based on their condition: healthy implant (HI) group (n = 20) and peri-implantitis (PI) group (n = 20). Biopsy samples of PI tissue were collected from the patients under local anesthesia. HI tissue was obtained using the same method during the second implant surgery. To construct libraries for control and test RNAs, the QuantSeq 3' mRNA-Seq Library Prep Kit (Lexogen, Inc., Austria) was used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Samples were pooled based on representative cytokines obtained from RNA sequencing results and subjected to Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Hematoxylin and eosin staining, and immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis were performed to visually assess expression levels and analyze tissue histology. Student's t-test was employed to conduct statistical analyses. RESULTS: Initially, heatmaps were used to examine gene expression variations between the HI and PI groups based on the results of RNA sequencing. Notably, among various cytokines, CXCL5 and CXCL8 had the highest expression levels in the PI group compared with the HI group, and they are known to be associated with inflammatory responses. In the gingival tissues, the expression of genes encoding cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1ß, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6, and CXCL5/CXCL8 was assessed via RT-qPCR. The mRNA expression level of CXCL5/CXCL8 significantly increased in the PI group compared with the HI group (p < .045). Contrarily, the mRNA expression level of interleukin 36 receptor antagonist (IL36RN) significantly decreased (p < .008). IHC enabled examination of the distribution and intensity of CXCL5/CXCL8 protein expression within the tissue samples. Specifically, increased levels of CXCL5/CXCL8 promote inflammatory responses, cellular proliferation, migration, and invasion within the peri-implant tissues. These effects are mediated through the activation of the PI3K/Akt/NF-κB signaling pathway. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that the PI sites had higher gene expression level of CXCL8/CXCL5 in the soft tissue than HI sites, which could help achieve more accurate diagnosis and treatment planning.

Efficacy of ozonated olive oil against peri-implant microbes isolated from peri-implantitis.

This study aimed to investigate the antibacterial and antimicrobial activity of ozone gel against oral biofilms grown on titanium dental implant discs. The experiment used medical grade five titanium discs on which peri-implant isolated biofilms were grown. The experimental groups were control, Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) and Granulicatella adiacens (G. adiacens), (n = 6). The oral microbes grown on titanium discs were exposed to ozone gel for 3 minutes and the antibacterial activity was assessed by turbidity test and adherence test for the antibiofilm activity test. Bacterial morphology and confluence were investigated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), (n=3). Two bacterial species were identified from the peri-implant sample, S. mutans and G. adiacens. The results showed that adding ozone to the bacterial biofilm on titanium dental implants did not exhibit significant antibacterial activity against S. mutans. Moreover, there was no significant difference in antibiofilm activity between control and treatment groups. However, significant antibacterial and antibiofilm effect was exhibited by ozone gel against G. adiacens. Ozonated olive oil can be considered as a potential antimicrobial agent for disinfecting dental implant surfaces and treating peri-implantitis.

Ebselen restores peri-implantitis-induced osteogenic inhibition via suppressing BMSCs ferroptosis.

It is hard to reconstruct bone defects in peri-implantitis due to osteogenesis inhibited by excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS). Ferroptosis, a recently identified regulated cell death characterized by iron- and ROS- dependent lipid peroxidation, provides us with a new explanation. Our study aims to explore whether ferroptosis is involved in peri-implantitis-inhibited osteogenesis and confirm ebselen, an antioxidant with glutathione peroxidase (GPx)-like activity, could inhibit ferroptosis and promote osteogenesis in peri-implantitis. In this study, we used LPS to mimic the microenvironment of peri-implantitis. The osteogenic differentiation of bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) was assessed by alkaline phosphatase (ALP), Alizarin Red S, and mRNA and protein expression of osteogenic-related markers. Ferroptosis index analysis included iron metabolism, ROS production, lipid peroxidation and mitochondrial morphological changes. Iron overload, reduced antioxidant capability, excessive ROS, lipid peroxidation and the characteristic mitochondrial morphological changes of ferroptosis were observed in LPS-treated BMSCs, and adding Ferrostatin-1 (Fer-1) restored the inhibitory effect of ferroptosis on osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs. Furthermore, ebselen ameliorated LPS-induced ferroptosis and osteogenic inhibition, which were reversed by erastin. Our results demonstrated that ferroptosis is involved in osteogenic inhibition in peri-implantitis and ebselen could attenuate osteogenic dysfunction of BMSCs via inhibiting ferroptosis.

Clinical, immunological and microbiological evaluation of experimental peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis in subjects with Grade C, stage III/IV periodontitis background.

AIM: To compare individuals with a periodontitis background (Grade C, stage III/IV-formerly generalized aggressive periodontitis) (H-GAP) with periodontally healthy subjects (H-Health) in terms of molecular changes (immunological/microbiological) accompanying experimental peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: H-GAP and control (H-Health) subjects were recruited, and experimental mucositis/gingivitis was induced around a single screw-retained implant and one contralateral tooth. Participants refrained from oral hygiene for 21 days in the selected areas, followed by professional prophylaxis and hygiene instructions for 21 days. Clinical parameters, immunological markers (multiplex analysis) and microbial data (16S rRNA gene sequencing) were collected at baseline, during induction (7, 14 and 21 days) and following remission (42 days). RESULTS: Clinically, no significant differences were observed between the groups (n = 10/each group) (H-GAP vs. H-Health) (p > .05, Mann-Whitney test) and the type of site (tooth vs. implant) (p > .05, Wilcoxon test) at the time of onset and resolution, or severity of gingival/mucosal inflammation. H-GAP displayed lower concentrations of the cytokines interleukin (IL)-1B, IL-4, IL-17, tumor necrosis factor-α and interferon-γ around implants than H-Health at baseline and during induction of mucositis (p < .05, Mann-Whitney test). In both groups, implants showed significantly higher inflammatory background at baseline and all subsequent visits when compared with teeth (p < .05, Wilcoxon test). Alpha and ß-diversity metrics showed a significant shift in the microbiome composition and abundances of core species during induction and resolution of peri-implant mucositis and gingivitis (p < .05, restricted maximum likelihood method of Shannon and Bray-Curtis indices, respectively). Differences were not significant for these parameters between the H-Health and H-GAP groups when the periodontal and peri-implant microbiomes were compared separately; however, at each time point, the peri-implant microbiome differed significantly from the periodontal microbiome. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this pilot study (e.g. low power), it can be concluded that different microbial shifts contribute to the onset and progression of inflammatory responses around teeth and implants and that history of periodontal disease experience plays an additional role in modulating the immune response of peri-implant and periodontal tissues to biofilm accumulation.

Single-cell sequencing identifies inflammation-promoting fibroblast-neutrophil interaction in peri-implantitis.

AIM: To reveal the cellular composition and molecular environment of the periodontal and peri-implant inflammatory infiltrates through a single-cell sequencing technique, which may explain the pathological difference between these two diseases. A special focus was placed on the phenotypes and potential roles of neutrophils and fibroblasts in peri-implant/periodontal tissue immunity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: High-throughput single-cell transcriptomic profiling of peri-implant tissues from patients with peri-implantitis as well as periodontal tissues from patients with periodontitis and healthy donors was performed. Immunofluorescence analysis was carried out to further validate the identified cell subtypes and their involvement in peri-implantitis and periodontitis. RESULTS: Based on our single-cell resolution analysis, a quantified proportional increase of neutrophil (Neu) subtypes was shown in peri-implantitis. Among these, a predominance of Neutro_CXCR2 was revealed. We also found the involvement of inflammation-promoting fibroblasts as well as a predominance of CXCL8+ fibroblast-CXCR2+ neutrophil interaction in peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicated that the predominance of CXCL8+ fibroblast-CXCR2+ neutrophil interaction might underline the enhanced host response in peri-implantitis compared with periodontitis. This information offers a molecular basis by which fibroblast and neutrophil subtypes might be diagnostically and therapeutically targeted in peri-implantitis.

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.

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.

CCR2 is a potential therapeutic target in peri-implantitis.

AIM: CCR2 (C-C chemokine receptor type 2) plays a crucial role in inflammatory and bone metabolic diseases; however, its role in peri-implantitis remains unclear. This study aimed to explore whether CCR2 contributes to peri-implantitis and the treatment effects of cenicriviroc (CVC) on peri-implant inflammation and bone resorption. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The expression of CCR2 was studied using clinical tissue analysis and an in vivo peri-implantitis model. The role of CCR2 in promoting inflammation and bone resorption in peri-implantitis was evaluated in Ccr2-/- mice and wild-type mice. The effect of CVC on peri-implantitis was evaluated using systemic and local dosage forms. RESULTS: Human peri-implantitis tissues showed increased CCR2 and CCL2 levels, which were positively correlated with bone loss around the implants. Knocking out Ccr2 in an experimental model of peri-implantitis resulted in decreased monocyte and macrophage infiltration, reduced pro-inflammatory cytokine generation and impaired osteoclast activity, leading to reduced inflammation and bone loss around the implants. Treatment with CVC ameliorated bone loss in experimental peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: CCR2 may be a potential target for peri-implantitis treatment by harnessing the immune-inflammatory response to modulate the local inflammation and osteoclast activity.

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.

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during supportive treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

Clinical outcomes of implant- versus abutment-level connection in screw-retained fixed dental prostheses: A 5-year randomized controlled trial.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the 5 years clinical outcomes associated with implant-level connection (IL) versus abutment-level connection (AL) for implants with an internal conical connection (ICC) supporting a screw-retained fixed partial denture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients with 119 implants were randomly allocated to either the AL or IL group. Radiographic (Marginal bone loss) and clinical outcomes (Bleeding on Probing, probing pocket depth, plaque accumulation, incidence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis as well as prosthetic complications) were collected and compared at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. A linear mixed model was used to evaluate the differences between groups. RESULTS: Five years after treatment, the MBL change was not significantly different between the groups at any point. The MBL was 0.23 ± 0.64 mm (AL) and 0.23 ± 0.29 mm (IL). The bleeding on Probing was 44% (AL) and 45% (IL) (p = .89). The mean probing depth was 2.91 ± 1.01 mm (AL) and 3.51 ± 0.67 mm (IL). This difference between the groups was statistically significant but clinical insignificant. Presence of plaque was slightly higher (p = .06) in the IL group (34.4%) compared with the AL group (26.3%). The overall technical, biological, and prosthetic complication rates were similar between groups. None of the implants developed peri-implantitis during the entire follow-up period. CONCLUSION: The results of this clinical trial indicated that all clinical and radiographical parameters were clinically comparable between the study groups.