Purpose To evaluate the association between Gram‐negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas with mucositis and peri‐implantitis, in implants restored with cemented and screw‐retained reconstructions. Materials and Methods Individuals treated with implants, diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis and or peri‐implantitis, participated in this study. Microbiota from the implant and the gingival sulcus of two neighboring teeth were also studied. The microorganisms were identified using matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry. Results A total of 52 and 51 implants cemented and screwed restored were evaluated in 31 patients. The presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas (P = .01) was significantly higher in the cemented restored implants. When the unit of analysis was the implant, the presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants after adjustment for possible confounders (odds ratio [OR] = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.4‐10; P = .01); besides, peri‐implantitis was statistically significant in the multivariate model (P = .008). Considering the patient as a unit of analysis, peri‐implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants (OR = 9.4; 95% CI, 2‐46; P = .006); this statistically significant association remained after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3‐37; P = .02). Conclusion The presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants; besides, peri‐implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants.

ObjectivesTo assess the association between Gram‐negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas with the clinical parameters in peri‐implant disease.Materials and MethodsPatients treated with implants and diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis and/or peri‐implantitis participate in this cross‐sectional research. Unusual microorganisms from the implants were recognized using MALDI‐TOF mass spectrometry. Linear regression models were applied.ResultsA total of 103 implants were evaluated in thirty‐one participants. Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas were observed in 47 implants (46%). Interestingly, there were differences in probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment loss (CA), and bleeding on probing (BOP) between the groups, where implants with the presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas presented deteriorated clinical parameters (p < .0001). The crude and adjusted linear regression models for PPD in peri‐implant mucositis, PPD in peri‐implantitis, CA in peri‐implantitis, and BOP in peri‐implant disease present significant βs, demonstrating deteriorated parameters (p < .0001) in the presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas. Besides, the model for CA in peri‐implantitis showed that cemented restored reconstructions were statistically significant (p = .009). Additionally, the R2 value in most models indicated a high degree of correlation (>85%).ConclusionThe occurrence of Gram‐negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas was associated with deteriorated clinical parameters in patients with peri‐implant disease.