The prevalence, causes and consequences of crestal bone loss at dental implants are a matter of debate. In recent years, a high prevalence of peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation, associated with peri-implant bone loss, has been reported and the need for treatments similar to those offered for natural teeth affected by periodontitis has been proposed. This suggestion is based on the assumption that periodontal indices, such as probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing, are reliable indicators of the peri-implant tissue conditions and good predictors of future bone loss. However, based on a critical review of the literature in the present paper, it is concluded that periodontal indices are not reliable either for identifying peri-implant disease or for predicting future risk for peri-implant crestal bone loss and implant failure. The long-term experiences with dental implants, presented in the literature, indicate that the presence of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depths much larger than 4 mm and some bone loss seem to reflect, in most instances, normal conditions of well-functioning dental implants, bearing in mind that healing of dental implants is the result of a foreign body reaction with the formation of scar tissue. Therefore, the use of probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing assessments may lead to over-diagnosis and possibly to over-treatment of assumed biofilm-mediated peri-implantitis lesions. It is the opinion of the authors of this review that a treatment should only be initiated when a clinical problem is present based on patient's symptoms (discomfort, pain), the presence of swelling, redness and pus, and significant crestal bone loss over time (as verified with radiographs). The treatment should aim at resolving the infection, which could include removal of the implant.

Background: Marginal bone resorption has by some been identified as a "disease" whereas in reality it generally represents a condition.Purpose: The present article is a comparison between oral and orthopedic implants, as previously preferred comparisons between oral implants and teeth seem meaningless. Materials and Methods:The article is a narrative review on reasons for marginal bone loss.

The aim was to define the morphology and roughness of dentin from different tooth areas after various pretreatments to identify the effect of hybrid layer, resin tags, and mineralised dentin surface on shear bond strength. Thirty-eight extracted molars were used, each providing two sections of cervical (c) and lateral (l) dentin. Five pretreatments were performed: A) 0.2% EDTA; B) abrasion with Al2O3 particles, 0.2% EDTA; C) 10% H3PO4; D) 10% H3PO4 and immersion in a collagenase solution; E) control: no treatment. Z100 composite resin cylinders were bonded to the specimens with All Bond 2 bonding resin and tested for shear bond strength. Twelve other specimens from each group were analysed with an optical profilometer and an atomic force microscope, and four were further examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mean shear strength values in MPa were: Ac: 8.36 +/- 4.23; Al: 8.77 +/- 3.68; Bc: 6.05 +/- 3.62; Bl: 8.39 +/- 4.60; Cc: 6.87 +/- 3.45; Cl: 9.00 +/- 5.62; Dc: 13.30 +/- 5.45; Dl: 8.44 +/- 4.47; Ec: 4.10 +/- 1.54; El: 6.09 +/- 4.34. No statistically significant difference for cervical versus lateral dentin was found within treatments except for group D. Treatments performed on lateral dentin did not differ significantly. In cervical dentin, A differed from E; C from E; and D from A, B, C and E. An increased surface roughness was found in group D. Shear bond strength to dentin did not seem to depend on a hybrid layer formation, but on the direct contact of the adhesive with the mineralised dentinal surface and partly on the orientation of the dentinal tubules.

No abstract

Pocket probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) measurements are useful indices for the assessment of periodontal conditions. The same periodontal indices are commonly recommended to evaluate the dental implant/tissue interface to identify sites with mucositis and peri-implantitis, which, if not treated, are anticipated to lead to implant failure. The aim of the present narrative review is to discuss the available literature on the effectiveness of probing at dental implants for identification of peri-implant pathology. There is substantial clinical evidence that PPD and BOP measurements are very poor indices of peri-implant tissue conditions and are questionable surrogate endpoints for implant failure. On the contrary, the literature suggests that frequent disturbance of the soft tissue barrier at implants may instead induce inflammation and bone resorption. Moreover, over-diagnosis and subsequent unnecessary treatment may lead to iatrogenic damage to the implant-tissue interface. Despite this, the recommendations from recent consensus meetings are still promoting the use of probing at dental implants. For evaluation of implants, for instance at annual check-ups, the present authors recommend a clinical examination that includes (i) a visual inspection of the peri-implant tissues for the assessment of oral hygiene and the detection of potential redness, swelling, (ii) palpation of the peri-implant tissues for assessment of the potential presence of swelling, bleeding, suppuration. In addition, (iii) radiography is recommended for the assessment of crestal bone level for comparison with previous radiographs to evaluate potential progressive bone loss even if there is a need for more scientific evidence of the true value of the first two clinical testing modes.