Prevalence of Peri-implant Diseases in Patients with Osteoporosis: a Systematic Review

The aim of the present critical review is to summarize recent evidence on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and their similarities and differences with periodontal diseases with a focus on their pathogenetic mechanisms. Reports on the extent and severity of peri-implant diseases are influenced by different case definitions. The prevalence of peri-implant diseases is reported at the subject or implant level and affected by the type of population samples analyzed (e.g., randomly selected population samples or convenience samples). The outcomes of studies on animals and humans indicate that experimental biofilm accumulation leads to a higher frequency of bleeding sites around implants as compared with teeth. Despite the proof of principle that experimentally induced mucositis may be reversible, early diagnosis and management of naturally occurring peri-implant mucositis are clinically relevant. Tissue destruction at experimental peri-implantitis sites is faster and more extensive when compared with that at experimental periodontitis sites. Although human periodontitis and peri-implantitis lesions share similarities with respect to etiology and clinical features, they represent distinct entities from a histopathologic point of view. To avoid implant loss, patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis should be treated without delay.

Peri-implant diseases are a growing concern among clinicians. Epidemiological studies following recently recommended case definitions for peri-implant diseases are emerging worldwide. Although a small number of studies on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases has been conducted in Brazil, no information on the extent and severity of the condition has been made available so far. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence, extent and severity of peri-implant diseases in patients treated in a university setting in Brazil. Patients with dental implants with at least 1year in function were clinically and radiographically examined and classified according to recently recommended case definitions. A descriptive analysis on the prevalence, extent and severity of the peri-implant status at patient and implant level was performed. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis were also identified with binary logistic regression analysis. Of the 211 participating individuals, 4 (1.9%) presented peri-implant health, 8 (3.8%) clinical stability, 115 (54.5%) mucositis and 84 (39.8%) peri-implantitis. Of the 748 implants analyzed, 47 (6.3%) presented peri-implant health, 30 (4%) clinical stability, 518 (69.2%) mucositis and 153 (20.5%) peri-implantitis. The extent of implants with peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis was 41.5% and 90.4%, respectively. Severe peri-implantitis was found in 36 patients (17.1%) and 67 implants (9%). Gender male, number of implants ≥4, implants installed in the maxilla, cemented prosthesis and keratinized mucosa width <2mm were significantly associated with the event peri-implantitis. In the studied population, the prevalence, extent and severity of the peri-implant diseases were similar to those reported elsewhere. Peri-implant diseases were a common finding, with only 5.7% of patients and 10.3% of implants presenting peri-implant health or clinical stability. About 17% of patients studied presented the severe form of peri-implantitis.

The correlation of peri-implantitis with systemic diseases is still highly debated and controversial in literature. The objective of this work was to evaluate the possible association between peri-implant diseases and metabolic syndrome. In this case-control study, subjects healthy or affected by metabolic syndrome, with at least one dental implant with >5 years of functional loading were screened to detect peri-implant health or diseases. A complete full mouth periodontal and peri-implant examination at six sites was performed for each implant and standardized periapical X-ray were taken to evaluate marginal bone loss. Diagnostic Criteria of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions were applied. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare means of recorded variables between the two groups, with a P<0.05 value considered statistically significant. Sub-group analysis was performed for smoking (smokers vs. non-smokers), sex (males vs. females), implant site (maxillary vs. mandible) and type of prostheses (single crown vs. bridge). Forty-one patients were enrolled, divided into two groups, for a total of 132 dental implants: 71 in the metabolic syndrome group and 61 in the control group. The overall prevalence of peri-implant diseases (peri-implantitis + mucositis) in the two groups was, respectively, 93% vs. 63%, with an odds ratio (OR) of 7.4462 (95% CI: 2.6092; 21.2496) for the metabolic syndrome group (P<0.001). Despite the limited sample, our results showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of peri-implant diseases in patients with metabolic syndrome compared to healthy patients. Further longitudinal studies are needed to verify this relationship.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of peri-implant diseases and their potential risk indicators in a private practice setting.Materials and MethodsThis cross-sectional study evaluated data from 390 subjects (mean age 55.8 ± 11.6 years) with implant-supported prosthetic reconstructions, who were enrolled in a maintenance program for 6.25 ± 3.36 years. Clinical evaluation included peri-implant probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and full-mouth plaque scores (FMPS). Radiographic evaluation was performed using retro-alveolar radiographs for each implant. Further, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, or tooth loss due to periodontal disease, presence/absence of keratinized mucosa ≥ 2 mm and the quality of the prosthetic restoration were also assessed. The prevalence of the peri-implant disease (at the subject/implant level) was determined and various potential risk indicators were evaluated by multi-level logistic regression analysis.ResultsThe prevalence of peri-implant diseases was 37.7% and 23.3% at the subject and implant level, respectively. 14.3% of the subjects were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and 8.9% were diagnosed with advanced peri-implantitis (PI). PI was statistically significantly associated with poor (FMPS > 0.45, p < 0.001) or moderate oral hygiene (FMPS: 0.3–0.45, p < 0.001), a history of periodontitis (p < 0.001), lack of keratinized tissue ≥2 mm (p < 0.001) or implant function time > 5 years (p < 0.001).ConclusionIn a private practice setting, a prevalence of peri-implant diseases of 37.7%/ 23.3% (subject/implant level) was found. Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, a keratinized mucosa < 2 mm and a time in function ≥ 5 years have been associated with the occurrence of peri-implant diseases.

To assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases (ie, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) in patients rehabilitated with full-arch, implant-supported restorations. A search protocol was developed to answer the following focus question: What is the prevalence of peri-implant diseases in edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported fixed or removable restorations? RCTs, controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies with at least 12 months of follow-up and a minimum of 10 patients having at least one edentulous arch were searched. A total of 18 studies (3 RCTs, 1 nonrandomized controlled trial, and 14 prospective studies) were included. According to a single study, the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis in fully edentulous patients was 57%, corresponding to 47% at the implant level. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis among patients having at least one edentulous arch ranged between 0% and 13.7% of patients, and from 0% to 20% of implants. In fully edentulous patients, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was found to range between 1.5% and 29.7% of patients and between 2.1% and 20.3% of the implants, while the corresponding values among the patients with at least one edentulous arch were 0% to 25% and 0% to 7.2%, respectively. Edentulous patients (fully edentulous or at least one edentulous arch) restored with either fixed or removable restorations were frequently affected by peri-implant disease.

The present cross-sectional study aimed to determine the prevalence and the risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases (PIDs) in patients who were subjected to computer-guided implant surgery. Patients that were treated and screened during regular maintenance visits at one university center were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Implants were diagnosed into the categories of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, or peri-implantitis according to the 2017 World Workshop established case definitions. Bivariate and multivariable analyzes were conducted to identify local parameters and patient characteristics as associated risk indicators with PIDs, bleeding on probing (BOP) and marginal bone level (MBL) change. A total of 115 patients with 417 implants were evaluated during a regular maintenance visit at one university center. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence in digitally-guided implant sites were 67.8% and 9.6% at the patient level, respectively. Former and active smokers, active or a history of periodontitis, implant loading time, plaque index (PI), and absence of soft tissue graft were significantly associated with peri-implantitis. Bruxism, gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, and type of oral hygiene aid (OHI) displayed a significant association with peri-implant MBL changes. The prevalence of peri-implant diseases in digitally-guided implant sites was comparable for mucositis and appeared lower for peri-implantitis when compared to previous outcomes with nondigital guided implant placement. Notably, patient-related factors and local clinical characteristics such as smoking, periodontitis, higher PI scores, and implant loading time were significantly associated with the occurrence of PIDs, while soft tissue grafting had a protective effect.

Introduction: Due to the growing demand for dental implants to treat edentulism, the presence of peri-implant diseases (PD) is also increasing. Estimates of the prevalence of PD in the world continue to be heterogeneous. According to the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases in the Colombian population, its frequency was unknown. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of PD in patient assistants in a dental clinic of a Colombian university in Bogotá between 2015-2020. Methodology: Cross-sectional observational study based on dental records. From a sample frame of 370 dental records of patients treated with dental implants, a sample size of 156 was established and chosen randomly. An analysis was performed through descriptive and inferential statistics. Statistical significance was considered p &lt; 0.05. The open statistical package R was used. Results: The final sample was 216 implants. The prevalence of peri-implant health was 50.93%, peri-implant mucositis 31.48%, and peri-implantitis 17.59%. There was a significant relationship between elevated Silness and Löe index and female gender with the development of PD ( p=0.000). Systemic conditions other than diabetes, implant placement time, simultaneous regeneration, surgical and post-surgical complications, placement site, and adherence to maintenance therapies did not have statistical significance. Conclusion: The prevalence of PD was 49.07% in these implants. This indicates the need for a follow-up program and supportive peri-implant therapy.

General genetic and acquired risk factors, and prevalence of peri-implant diseases – Consensus report of working group 1

To evaluate the influence of the width of keratinized tissue (KT) on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, and soft- and hard-tissue stability. Clinical studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases (primary outcome), plaque index (PI), modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding index (mBI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depths (PD), mucosal recession (MR), and marginal bone loss (MBL) and/or patient-reported outcomes (PROMs; secondary outcomes) were searched. The weighted mean differences (WMD) were estimated for the assessed clinical and radiographic parameters by employing a random-effect model that considered different KT widths (i.e., <2 and ≥2mm). Twenty-two articles describing 21 studies (15 cross-sectional, five longitudinal comparative studies, and one case series with pre-post design) with an overall high to low risk of bias were included. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis affected 20.8% to 42% and at 10.5% to 44% of the implants with reduced or absent KT (i.e., <2mm or 0mm). The corresponding values at the implant sites with KT width of ≥2mm or >0mm were 20.5% to 53% and 5.1% to 8%, respectively. Significant differences between implants with KT<2mm and those with KT≥2mm were revealed for WMD for BOP, mPI, PI, MBL, and MR all favoring implants with KT≥2mm. Reduced KT width is associated with an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis, plaque accumulation, soft-tissue inflammation, mucosal recession, marginal bone loss, and greater patient discomfort.

The objective of this paper was to evaluate the current evidence reporting on the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to determine the influencing factors. An electronic search for articles published until February 2019 reporting on the prevalence of peri-implantitis was performed in MEDLINE. Included criteria were published in international peer-reviewed journals, written in English language, reported on the prevalence of peri-implantitis, included implants with a minimum follow-up of one year after functional loading and used a clear definition for peri-implantitis and/or peri-implant mucositis with a clear cutoff for bone level changes according to the case definitions of Sanz and Chapple and Berglundh et al. 2018. Included papers were anaylized for factors affecting the reported prevalences for peri-implantitis. Twenty-five papers were included in the present review and a wide range for the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis was seen. Case definitions for peri-implantitis with various thresholds for bone loss together with the type of reporting on patient- or implant-level were the most significant factors that lead to a large variety of the occurrence of the disease. Additionally, follow-up time and the evaluation in a certain "convenience" population may have influenced the prevalence values. In conclusion, it can be stated that a wide range for reporting the prevalence of peri-implantitis can be found and no real estimation of the global burden of the disease can be made. Applying accurate case definitions for peri-implantitis is the most important factor for reporting the prevalence and should be strictly followed in future reports.

To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis or periimplantitis for subcrestally placed implants (1-3mm) on the short-, medium- and long term. Two hundred patients were enrolled in this cross-sectional study that were treated and screened during regular maintenance visits at one university center. A total of 657 implants were evaluated. Peri-implant health and diseases were assessed according to predefined case definitions. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the correlation with local and systemic factors. After a median function time of 9.36±6.44years (range: 1-26years), the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 66.5% and 15.0%, at the patient level, corresponding to 62.6% and 7.5%, at the implant level, respectively. Peri-implantitis was significantly associated with patients' history of periodontitis (odds ratio, OR 5.33). Peri-implant diseases were a common finding around subcrestally placed implants.

Considering the widespread use of dental implants, a precise definition for peri-implant tissue health and an appropriate classification for peri-implant diseases are imperative for researchers and dental clinicians. However, absence of a unanimous definition and an efficient classification system has created controversies in the published reports regarding the epidemiology and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. Moreover, lack of a standard system for differentiation of different grades of peri-implantitis further complicates the interpretation of reports regarding the diagnosis prevalence, treatment, and outcome of such conditions, and highlights the need for a classification system based on the severity of disease. Almost all of the currently available classification systems focus on the assessment of health or disease status of the tissues around loaded implants. The purpose of the present study is to propose a classification/scoring system for peri-implant tissue health before and after prosthetic loading. This grading system can aid the researchers and dental clinicians in assessment of peri-implant tissue condition both before and after prosthetic loading of dental implants.

Background: the prevalence of peri-implant diseases is constantly growing, particularly with the increasing use of dental implants. As such, achieving healthy peri-implant tissues has become a key challenge in implant dentistry since it considers the optimal success paradigm. This narrative review aims to highlight the current concepts regarding the disease and summarize the available evidence on treatment approaches clarifying their indications for usage following the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (2017). Methods: we reviewed the recent literature and conducted a narrative synthesis of the available evidence on peri-implant diseases. Results: scientific evidence on case definitions, epidemiology, risk factors, microbiological profile, prevention, and treatment approaches for peri-implant diseases were summarized and reported. Conclusions: although there are numerous protocols for managing peri-implant diseases, they are diverse and nonstandardized, with no consensus on the most effective, leading to treatment confusion.

The aim of this study is to examine the association between retention type (cement-retained versus screw-retained restorations) and prevalence of peri-implant diseases in a German university-treated population. Data were analyzed from individuals that underwent clinical and radiographic peri-implant examinations as part of a university-based cross-sectional study from September 2011 to October 2012. Data from 139 individuals (mean age: 57.59 years) having 394 implants were analyzed: 192 implants supporting single crowns and 202 fixed partial dentures. Overall, 11.9% of the participants had peri-implantitis, whereas 68.9% had peri-implant mucositis. Crude odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis for cement- versus screw-retained restorations were 1.43 (0.45, 4.60) and 0.89 (0.53, 1.48), respectively. Results remained non-significant in multivariable models adjusting for type of restoration and smoking (all P values >0.50). There was also no effect of splinting restorations on disease prevalence in adjusted analyses (P values >0.32). In this university-treated sample, there is no association between the type of prosthesis retention and peri-implant diseases. Current findings show that, when appropriate selection and removal of cement is performed, cement retention is not a risk indicator for peri-implant diseases.

The 5- and 10-year implant success rates in dentistry are nearly 90%. Prevalence of peri-implant diseases is 10% for peri-implantitis and 50% for peri-implant mucositis. To better understand these inflammatory pathologies of infectious origin, it is important to know if the composition of the peri-implant microbiota is comparable with the periodontal microbiota in healthy and pathological conditions. New generation sequencing (NGS) is a recent metagenomic method that analyzes the overall microorganisms present in an ecological niche by exploiting their genome. These methods are of two types: 16S rRNA sequencing and the shotgun technique. For several years, they have been used to explore the oral, periodontal, and, more specifically, peri-implant microbiota. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the recent results of these new explorations by comparing the periodontal and peri-implant microbiota in patients with healthy and diseased sites and to explore the microbiological characteristics of peri-implantitis. A better knowledge of the composition of the peri-implant microbiota would enable us to optimize our therapeutic strategies. An electronic systematic search was performed using the medical databases PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect, and Periodontology 2000. The selected articles were published between January 2015 and March 2021. Inclusion criteria included clinical studies comparing healthy and pathological periodontal and peri-implant microbiota exclusively using 16S rRNA sequencing or shotgun sequencing, with enrolled populations free of systemic pathology, and studies without substantial bias. Eight articles were selected and reviewed. All of them used 16S rRNA sequencing exclusively. The assessment of these articles demonstrates the specific character of the peri-implant microbiota in comparison with the periodontal microbiota in healthy and pathological conditions. Indeed, peri-implant diseases are defined by dysbiotic bacterial communities that vary from one individual to another, including known periodontopathogens such as Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.g.) and genera less mentioned in the periodontal disease pattern such as Filifactor alocis. Examination of peri-implant microbiota with 16S rRNA sequencing reveals differences between the periodontal and peri-implant microbiota under healthy and pathological conditions in terms of diversity and composition. The pattern of dysbiotic drift is preserved in periodontal and peri-implant diseases, but when comparing the different types of pathological sites, the peri-implant microbiota has a specificity in the presence of bacteria proper to peri-implantitis and different relative proportions of the microorganisms present.