Prevalence Of Peri-implant Mucositis Research Articles

Influence of repeated implant-abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases in complete arch restorations. A retrospective analysis.

To evaluate the effects of repeated abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases. A total of 27 edentulous patients (n = 108 implants) immediately restored with double-crown retained implant-supported prostheses were identified for this retrospective study. The test included the one-abutment, one-time care concept (n = 18 patients, n = 72 implants, OAOT) and the control abutment replacement (n = 9 patients, n = 36 implants, AR). A mixed effects model regression was conducted for the variable diagnosis (healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis) with predictors abutment replacement (presence/absence), number of abutment replacement, category of keratinized mucosa (KM) (2 < KM ≥2 mm), and radiographic bone loss (BL). After 3-15 years (mean 10.2 ± 2.8 years), the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients in the AR group was 11.1% and 88.9%, corresponding to 22.2% and 55.6% at the implant level, respectively. In OAOT group, none of the implants showed peri-implant mucositis, whereas the prevalence for peri-implantitis at patient and implant level amounted to 5.6% and 5.6%, respectively. The increased number of abutment replacements was significantly associated with the increased probability to diagnose peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (OR: 6.13; 95% CI [2.61, 14.39]) (p < 0.001), whereas the presence of keratinized mucosa was not founded as a significant cofounder. The estimated mean BL in AR group was 1.38 mm larger than in OAOT group (p = 0.0190). The OAOT concept was associated with a lower prevalence of peri-implant diseases.

Maintenance Costs, Time, and Efforts Following Implant Therapy With Fixed Restorations Over an Observation Period of 10 Years: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

To assess the costs and efforts of maintenance therapy following implant treatment with fixed restoration over an observation period of 10 years. This randomized controlled clinical trial included 64 patients who were randomly assigned to receive one of two implant systems (AST or STM) and fixed restoration. Patients were included in a regular maintenance program and were examined at loading, 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years. Outcome measures included technical and biological complications, time, efforts, and costs to resolve them. A total of 97 implants were placed in 64 patients (AST: 54, STM: 43). Patient recall rates at 5 and 10 years were 89% and 67%. In general, technical complications were resolved within one to two appointments (mean = 1.5), and biological complications required a mean of 1.3 appointments. The overall regular maintenance time for the period of 10 years amounted to 77 min per year. Technical complications occurred in 39.5% of the patients, with screw-loosening being the most common one (43.4% of all complications). The most time-consuming technical complication was abutment fracture (94 min ± 68), followed by screw fracture (84 min ± 38). The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis on the patient level was 30.2%, and it was 9.3% for peri-implantitis. The average annual maintenance costs amounted to 9% of the initial cost of the implant treatment over the period of 10 years. Additional regular maintenance costs and costs due to the treatment of potential complications have to be taken into consideration when placing dental implants. The majority of technical complications could be resolved within one appointment, whereas the time needed to treat biological complications varied between one and three appointments for peri-implantitis.

Stabilized oral lichen planus does not compromise dental implants survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of implant failure in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) and investigate the potential association between OLP and peri-implant diseases. Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched for studies with no time restrictions. Meta-analysis was performed calculating pooled proportion of peri-implantitis (PI), peri-implant mucositis (PIM), and bleeding on probing (BOP) prevalence using fixed-effects model. Odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated to assess the potential risk of PI, PIM, and BOP in dental implant patients with OLP compared to healthy controls. Implant failure rate was 4.38% at the patient level and 4.37% at the implant level. Six patients (3.92%) from five studies were diagnosed with oral cancer after receiving implant. The prevalence of PI, PIM, and BOP at the implant level were 14.00%, 20.00%, and 40.00%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of PI and PIM between OLP patients and healthy controls. Stabilized OLP is not considered a significant risk factor for peri-implant diseases. It is advised against placing implants or prostheses during the acute phase of the disease. Histopathological investigation to differentiate OLP from oral lichenoid dysplasia is crucial.

Immediate implant placement with immediate or delayed provisionalization in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A 10-year randomized trial.

To compare the marginal bone level of immediately placed implants, with either immediate or delayed provisionalization (IP or DP), in the maxillary aesthetic zone after 10 years of function. Participants with a failing tooth in the maxillary aesthetic zone were randomly assigned to immediate implant placement with either IP (n = 20) or DP (n = 20) after primary wound closure with a free gingival graft. The final restoration was placed 3 months after provisionalization. The primary outcome was change in marginal bone level. In addition, implant survival, restoration survival and success, peri-implant tissue health, mucosa levels, aesthetic indices, buccal bone thickness and patient satisfaction were evaluated. After 10 years, the mean mesial and distal changes in marginal bone level were -0.47 ± 0.45 mm and -0.49 ± 0.52 mm in the IP group and -0.58 ± 0.76 mm and -0.41 ± 0.72 mm in the DP group (p = .61; p = .71). The survival rate was 100% for the implants; for the restorations, it was 88.9% in the IP group and 87.5% in the DP group. Restoration success, according to modified USPHS criteria, was 77.8% in the IP group and 75.0% in the DP group. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 38.9% and 35.7% and of peri-implantitis 0.0% and 6.3%, respectively, in the IP group and DP group (p = 1.0; p = .40). The Pink Esthetic Score and White Esthetic Score was 15.28 ± 2.32 in the IP group and 14.64 ± 2.74 in the DP group, both clinically acceptable (p = .48). The buccal bone thickness was lower in the DP group. Patient satisfaction was similar in both groups (p = .75). The mean marginal bone level changes after immediate implant placement with IP were similar to those after immediate placement with DP. Registered in the National Trial Register (NL9340).

Current understanding of the etiology, diagnosis, treatment, and management of peri-implant diseases: a narrative review for the consensus report of the Korean Academy of Periodontology.

Over the past few decades, dental implants have been successfully utilized to replace teeth lost due to periodontal disease and other conditions. However, similar to natural teeth, dental implants are vulnerable to inflammatory peri-implant diseases, which can compromise their long-term viability. This review aims to summarize the current understanding of peri-implant diseases and discuss effective strategies for their diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management. Evidence related to peri-implant diseases was categorized and reviewed in 4 sections: 1) definition, prevalence, and classification; 2) risk indicators and etiological factors; 3) diagnostic criteria; and 4) treatment protocols for peri-implant diseases. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is significant, affecting 43% and 22% of implant cases, respectively. Key risk factors include poor oral hygiene, a history of periodontitis, and systemic conditions such as diabetes and smoking. The outcomes of treatment are influenced by the design of the implant prosthesis and the condition of the surrounding soft tissue. Management strategies include: 1) non-surgical treatment for implants diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis; 2) comprehensive treatment, which involves both mechanical and chemical debridement and surgical access, for implants affected by peri-implantitis; and 3) removal of failed implants, followed by the restoration of pre-existing peri-implant bone defects. Managing peri-implant diseases necessitates a comprehensive approach, encompassing risk assessment, tailored treatment planning, and stringent maintenance protocols. Regular follow-ups and patient education are critical for preventing disease recurrence and ensure the long-term success of implant therapy.

Investigation of peri-implant diseases prevalence and related risk indicators in patients with treated severe periodontitis over 4 years after restoration

Background/purposeHistory of periodontitis is a well-documented risk indicator of peri-implantitis. However, the influence of severity of periodontitis is still unclear, especially for severe periodontitis. This study was aimed to investigate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and analyze the risk indicators in patients with treated severe periodontitis. Materials and methodsA total of 182 implants from 88 patients (44 males and 44 females) with severe periodontitis with a mean fellow-up period of 76.5 months were enrolled in this study. Patient and implant information, and periodontal and peri-implant conditions were collected to evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and risk indicators. ResultsThe prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.1% and 6.6% at the patient-level and implant-level. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis was 76.1% and 51.1% at the patient-level and implant-level. Risk indicators of peri-implantitis included older age (OR: 1.132), poor proximal cleaning habits (OR: 14.218), implants in anterior area (OR: 10.36), poor periodontal disease control (OR: 12.76), high peri-implant plaque index (OR: 4.27), and keratinized tissue width (KTW)＜2 mm (OR: 19.203). ConclusionImplants in patients with severe periodontitis after periodontal treatment and maintenance show a low prevalence (9.1%) of peri-implantitis and a relatively high prevalence (76.2%) of peri-implant mucositis. Patient age, peri-implant proximal cleaning habits, implant position, periodontal disease control, peri-implant plaque index, and KTW are associated with prevalence of peri-implantitis.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Peri-Implant Disease: A Retrospective Case-Control Study in Western China.

Background: The present study aimed to investigate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and identify potential disease risk factors in western China. Methods: The present retrospective study was conducted in 131 consecutive patients receiving 248 dental implants treated with implant-supported prostheses with a mean follow-up of 2.52 years. Several patient-related, implant-related, and oral hygiene maintenance factors were analyzed. Results: Peri-implant disease developed in 68 (51.91%) patients and 110 (44.35%) implants. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were 45.80% and 7.63%, respectively, at the subject level, and 36.69% and 7.66%, respectively, at the implant level. Multivariate analysis exhibited that male [odds ratio (OR) = 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–3.57; p = 0.04], implant length < 10mm (OR = 7.87; 95% CI:1.62–38.46; p = 0.01), poor proximal contact of the prosthesis (OR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.06–3.42; p = 0.03), tooth brushing once a day (OR = 3.11; 95% CI: 1.26–7.68; p = 0.04) and moderate periodontitis (OR = 13.00; 95% CI: 4.38–38.60; p < 0.01) were independent risk factors for peri-implant disease.

A Retrospective Analysis of Biological Complications of Dental Implants.

Methods A retrospective analysis of patients aged ≥18 years and having dental implants placed at Dubai Health Authority in 2010. Relevant information related to systemic-, patient-, implant-, site-, surgical- and prosthesis-related factors were collected. The strength of association between the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and each variable was measured by chi-square analysis. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify possible risk factors. Results A total of 162 patients with 301 implant-supported restorations were included in the study. The age of the patients ranged between 19 and 72 with a mean age of 46.4 ± 11.7 years. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis at the patient and implant levels were 44.4% and 38.2%, respectively. For peri-implantitis, the prevalence at the patient level was 5.6%, while the prevalence at the implant level was 4.0%. The binary logistic regression identified three risk factors (smoking habits, histories of treated periodontitis and lack of peri-implant maintenance) for peri-implantitis. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, smoking habits, history of treated periodontitis and lack of peri-implant maintenance were significant risk factors for peri-implantitis. Early detection of these factors would ensure appropriate planning and care of patients at high risk of developing peri-implant diseases.

Recognition and treatment of peri-implant mucositis: Do we have the right perception? A structured review.

Peri-implant mucositis is a common inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding endosseous implants, with no loss of the supporting bone. Its prevention or early diagnosis are vital for dental implant success.The aim of this review was to investigate knowledge strengths and gaps in clinicians' perceptions of periimplant mucositis prevalence and evidence for successful treatment.A literature search for articles published until 2020, reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and its treatment was performed in standard online databases. The inclusion criteria were as follows: studies in English; studies with an available abstract; studies on humans with at least 1 dental implant; and studies reporting on the prevalence and/or treatment of peri-implant mucositis. Sixty-five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The included papers were analyzed to identify data on the prevalence and treatment of peri-implant mucositis. The prevalence statistics for peri-implant mucositis had wide ranges in both the patient-based (PB) analysis and the implant-based (IB) analysis; the possible reasons for these wide ranges are discussed. Treatment methods for peri-implant mucositis were analyzed individually and compared to the management of gingivitis.It was determined that the currently available information on the prevalence rates and the standardized therapeutic protocols for peri-implant mucositis are insufficient. Since the mean gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis prevalence rates in the PB analysis were similar, it is possible that peri-implant mucositis is underestimated due to variables related to implant rehabilitation itself.

Identification of a Predictive Decision Model Using Different Data Mining Algorithms for Diagnosing Peri-implant Health and Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The aim of this study was to determine a predictive decision model for peri-implant health and disease and to reveal the highest accuracy of prediction using three different data mining methods. This cross-sectional study included a total of 216 patients with 542 dental implants from the Periodontology Department of Gazi University. The implants were classified into peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis groups based on established clinical and radiographic assessments. Prediction models were created using clinical variables in combination with possible risk factors for peri-implant diseases. Different data mining methods (decision-tree [DT]; J48), logistic regression, and artificial neural network (multilayer perceptron [MLP]) were compared to yield a better predictive decision model based on predictor variables with the highest potential of effect. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis among the participants of the specialist referral periodontal practice of the university was 36.1% (95% CI: 29.7 to 42.5) and 34.7% (95% CI: 28.4 to 41.0) at the patient level, respectively. The J48 method revealed a higher prediction of peri-implant health and disease with an accuracy of 0.871 compared with the logistic regression and MLP methods (0.832 and 0.852, respectively) for the present data set. In this specific patient population, the J48 model revealed the top-level node as "bleeding on probing (BOP)." "Maintenance therapy" and "medication use" were noted as powerful predictors in the next split-levels. The J48 model presented an acceptable predictive accuracy of peri-implant health and disease. The model revealed BOP as a major predictive clinical parameter when evaluated with possible risk factors for this patient population.

Single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed partial dentures in the posterior region: a retrospective case series with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years

BackgroundThe aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the implant survival, clinical and radiographic outcomes, and patient satisfaction of single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed partial dentures in the posterior region.MethodsPatients who received a single implant-supported fixed partial denture with a cantilever in the posterior region between January 2004 and February 2018 were included. Survival rate of the implants and the fixed partial dentures and data regarding the marginal bone level, presence of plaque, calculus, bleeding on probing, mucosa health, pocket probing depth, and patient satisfaction were collected during an evaluation visit. Complications were recorded from the medical records.ResultsTwenty-three patients (mean age 64 ± 13 years) with 28 implants could be included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 6.5 ± 4.8 years at the time of data collection. The survival rate of the implants and fixed partial dentures was 100%. Mean marginal bone loss for the mesial and distal side of the implants was 0.41 mm (SD 1.18 mm) and 0.63 mm (SD 0.98 mm) respectively. A high prevalence of peri-implant-mucositis (89.3%) and peri-implantitis (17.9%) was observed as well as a limited number of technical complications. Patients were quite satisfied, as reflected by a mean VAS score of 94.0 ± 7.2 points (range 0–100) and a OHIP-NL49 score of 10.8 (range 0–196).ConclusionsSingle implant-supported fixed partial dentures with a mesial or distal cantilever can be a predictable treatment option in the posterior region, with stable peri-implant bone levels, minor technical complications, and very content patients. However, the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was high.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN79055740, Registered on March 14, 2021 – —Retrospectively registered.

The prevalence of peri-implant diseases around subcrestally placed implants: A cross-sectional study.

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.

Removable denture is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis and facilitates expansion of specific periodontopathogens: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundThe prevalence of peri-implantitis ranges between 7 and 38.4% depending on risk indicators such as smoking, diabetes mellitus, lack of periodontal maintenance program, and history or presence of periodontitis. Currently, the possible effect of the type of superstructure on peri-implant health is unclear. This cross-sectional study aims to investigate the influence of the superstructure on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis and peri-implant dysbiosis.MethodsDuring a 32-month recruitment period dental implants were assessed to diagnose healthy peri-implant tissues, mucositis or peri-implantitis. The study included 1097 implants in 196 patients. Out of all peri-implantitis cases 20 randomly chosen submucosal biofilms from implants with fixed denture (FD) originating from 13 patients and 11 biofilms from implants with removable dentures (RD) originating from 3 patients were studied for microbiome analysis. Composition of transcriptionally active biofilms was revealed by RNAseq. Metatranscriptomic profiles were created for thirty-one peri-implant biofilms suffering from peri-implantitis and microbiome changes associated with superstructure types were identified.Results16.41% of the implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis, 25.00% of implants with RD and 12.68% of implants with FD, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed a significant positive association on patient (p = < 0.001) and implant level (p = 0.03) between the prevalence of peri-implantitis and RD. Eight bacterial species were associated either with FD or RD by linear discriminant analysis effect size method. However, significant intergroup confounders (e.g. smoking) were present.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the present work, RDs appear to be a risk indicator for peri-implantitis and seem to facilitate expansion of specific periodontopathogens. Potential ecological and pathological consequences of shift in microbiome from RDs towards higher activity of Fusobacterium nucleatum subspecies animalis and Prevotella intermedia require further investigation.

The influence of soft-tissue volume grafting on the maintenance of peri-implant tissue health and stability

BackgroundTo investigate the influence of soft-tissue volume grafting employing autogenous connective tissue graft (CTG) simultaneous to implant placement on peri-implant tissue health and stability.Material and methodsThis cross-sectional observational study enrolled 19 patients (n = 29 implants) having dental implants placed with simultaneous soft-tissue volume grafting using CTG (test), and 36 selected controls (n = 55 implants) matched for age and years in function, who underwent conventional implant therapy (i.e., without soft-tissue volume grafting). Clinical outcomes (i.e., plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and mucosal recession (MR)) and frequency of peri-implant diseases were evaluated in both groups after a mean follow-up period of 6.15 ± 4.63 years.ResultsSignificant differences between test and control groups at the patient level were noted for median BOP (0.0 vs. 25.0%; p = 0.023) and PD scores (2.33 vs. 2.83 mm; p = 0.001), respectively. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis amounted to 42.1% and 5.3% in the test and to 52.8% and 13.9% in the control group, respectively.ConclusionSimultaneous soft-tissue grafting using CTG had a beneficial effect on the maintenance of peri-implant health.

Prevalence of Peri-implant Diseases in Patients with Full-Arch Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review.

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.

Prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implant diseases in a group of Moroccan patients.

To report the prevalence of peri-implant diseases in a North African patient population, and to assess the concurrent associations of patient- and implant-level characteristics with probing depth and bone loss around dental implants METHODS: A total of 642 implants in 145 subjects were followed up for a mean 6.4 years. At the last follow-up visit the subjects were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the status of peri-implant tissues and teeth. Data analysis used the generalized linear mixed models RESULTS: The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were 82.1% and 41.4% at the subject level, and 68.4% and 22.7% at the implant level, respectively. Inadequate plaque control, peri-implant inflammation, history of previous implant failures, and pain/discomfort at the implant site were significantly associated with both outcomes (increased probing depth and bone loss). Diabetes mellitus, inadequate implant restoration, single restorations (versus multi-unit), cement-retained restorations, and presence of occlusal wear facets on teeth were significantly associated with one of the two outcomes. Implants placed in the lower anterior jaw region had the most favorable outcome. Smoking, history of periodontitis, and type of implant surface did not show significant associations with higher frequency of peri-implant diseases in the multivariable analysis. Peri-implant diseases are prevalent in this North African patient population. Multiple subject- and implant-level variables were associated with peri-implant diseases. Risk assessment of these effects should consist of a concurrent inclusion of these factors in multivariable analyses that also adjust for the complex variance structure of the oral environment.

The effect of adjuvant oral irrigation on self-administered oral care in the management of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

This single-blinded randomized clinical trial evaluated the effect of adjuvant oral irrigation in addition to self-administered oral care on prevalence and severity of peri-implant mucositis. After randomization, patients suffering from peri-implant mucositis were assigned to the following: Group 1 (control) received oral hygiene instruction following a standardized protocol, including a sub- and supramucosal mechanical debridement. Group 2 and 3 additionally were instructed to use an oral irrigator with either water or 0.06% CHX solution. One implant per patient was considered for examination. Clinical examinations included Probing Depth, Bleeding on Probing (BOP-positive sites), and Modified Plaque and Gingival Index. A surrogate variable (mucositis severity score) was applied measuring severity of disease. Statistical analysis included linear regression models and sensitivity analysis. Sixty periodontally healthy patients were examined for presence and severity of peri-implant mucositis. 70% of all patients reached complete resolution of disease after 12weeks. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis after 12weeks was 50% in group 1, 35% in group 2, and 5% in group 3. Average BOP-positive sites were reduced in all groups after 12weeks (mean change from baseline: group 1: -1.5; group 2: -1.8; group 3: -2.3). Within the limits of the study, adjuvant use of an oral irrigator with 0.06% CHX in addition to mechanical biofilm removal and oral hygiene instruction can reduce the presence and severity of peri-implant mucositis after 12weeks.

Clinical Decision Making for Primary Peri-Implantitis Prevention: Practical Applications.

When planning dental implant therapy, what risk-reduction strategies allow practitioners to select patients, sites, and restorative plans that decrease the incidence of peri-implant disease? With a marked increase in the number of patients receiving dental implants to treat partial or complete edentulism, it follows that the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis have increased. Risks associated with implant therapies may vary based upon underlying local, environmental, surgical, patient, prosthetic, and fixture-related factors. Furthermore, an emphasis on preventative measures and maintenance should be undertaken to avoid development and progression of peri-implant diseases. Thorough risk assessment, proper treatment planning, and early diagnosis and intervention are critical in the absence of definitive data of long-term success of treatments for peri-implant condition. Given the difficulty in intervention once peri-implantitis is established, identification of risk factors and development of treatment plans to address those factors before dental implant therapy is critical to the long-term health and success of dental implants. A patient-centered, evidence based approach to dental implant treatment planning to reduce the risk for peri-implantitis should be undertaken. Systematic diagnosis of disease state(s) and evaluation of the etiologic and modifying risk factors for peri-implant diseases can yield more optimal outcomes to reduce peri-implantitis rates.

The influence of simultaneous lateral grafting on clinical outcomes following one-stage implant placement: a cross-sectional analysis

BackgroundTo investigate the influence of lateral bone augmentation procedures performed simultaneously with implant placement on peri-implant health or disease.Material and methodsA total of 232 patients showing the same type of a two-piece implant placed either simultaneously with lateral bone grafting using a bovine bone mineral and a native collagen membrane (n = 291 implants; test group) or at pristine bone sites without lateral bone grafting (n = 283 implants; control group) were enrolled in this cross-sectional analysis. Clinical outcomes (i.e., modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and mucosal recession (MR)), and the frequency of peri-implant disease were evaluated after a mean follow-up period of 9.97 ± 6.55 years.ResultsNo differences were found between the patients in the test and control groups for any of the parameters investigated (i.e., mPI, BOP, PD, and MR). For the implants in both groups, PD values of 4–6 mm were more frequently noted in the upper jaw. A significant correlation between increased PD values and a larger implant diameter was noted for test implant sites. A KM of < 2 mm was associated with increased MR values in both groups. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 68% and 5% for the patients in the test group and 61% and 10% in the control group, respectively.ConclusionsSimultaneous lateral grafting was associated with peri-implant tissue health and stability.

Analysis of risk indicators for prevalence of peri-implant diseases in Turkish population

BackgroundThe aim of this cross-sectional study was (1) to determine the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and (2) to reveal the risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases. The second point was to investigate the role of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant health.Materials and methodsThree hundred and eighty-two subjects who were treated with 1415 dental implants between 2011–2017 were clinically evaluated. Patients’ medical and dental history, as well as implant details, were recorded. Peri-implant examination included probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and keratinized tissue width. Furthermore, the patient (sex, age, and smoking) and implant/prosthesis-related factors (surface characteristic, time in function, design of prosthesis etc.) were evaluated. Implants were classified into three groups: healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Uni- and multi-variate regression analyses were utilized for statistics.Results41.1% (n = 157) and 36.9% (n = 84) of patients had mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively. 53.6% (n = 758) of implants (95%CI 80.2–90.4) had mucositis, and 21.7% (n = 307) had peri-implantitis. Patients with a maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.576), having periodontitis (OR = 3.342) and higher PI (OR = 3.046) had significant associations with the development of peri-implant mucositis. Significant ORs were determined for peri-implantitis with patients having maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.048), having number of implants ≥ 4 (OR = 2.103), diagnosed with periodontitis (OR = 3.295), and higher PI (OR = 7.055). Keratinized tissue width < 2 mm (ORs = 5389/8.013), PPD (ORs = 1.570/8.338), PI (ORs = 6.726/5.205), and BoP (ORs = 3.645/4.353) independent variables were significantly associated with both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at implant level, respectively.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be high in Turkish population. Furthermore, increased risk for peri-implantitis was identified in patients having maintenance < 2/year, presence of periodontitis, poor plaque control, and having number of implants ≥ 4. Less keratinized tissue (< 2 mm), PPD, and BoP were also risk indicators for peri-implantitis development.