The prevalence of peri-implant inflammatory disease in periodontal patients who regularly undergo SPT is clinically significant. The factors associated with peri-implant inflammatory disease were plaque index and implant location, and mucositis was also affected by the type of periodontitis the patient had.

BackgroundConnective tissue graft (CTG) is considered as the gold standard for the treatment of gingival recessions (GR). There are few studies assessing the complications that can arise in the donor site when harvesting a connective tissue graft (CTG) and how the harvesting technique can influence those complications.Material and MethodsA retrospective clinical study was carried out in order to compare the complications observed in 40 patients with Miller class I, II and III GR ≥ 3 mm, after using the trap-door technique (TD) in the control group and a newly described technique, the “UPV/EHU technique”, in the test group. Patients were consecutively allocated to each treatment group. Patients were monitored 14 days after surgery in order to evaluate post-operative complications in the donor site: presence of pain (P), bleeding (B), infection (I) and necrosis > 30%.ResultsAlthough morbidity was observed in both groups, it was less important in the test group (no pain and minimal pain in 30% and 35% of the cases, respectively, and absence of bleeding or infection and necrosis >30% in only 5% of the cases).ConclusionsWithin the limits of this study, this newly described “UPV/EHU technique” should be considered as a treatment option when harvesting a CTG, with minimal morbidity for patients. Key words:Connective tissue graft, pain, gingival recessions, wound healing, cosmetic periodontal plastic surgery, trap-door technique, “UPV/EHU technique”.

Objectives: To evaluate bone loss around implants placed in patients with a history of treated chronic periodontitis and who did or did not attend supportive periodontal therapy, after one year in function. Furthermore, the influence of periodontal biotype and level of plaque was also evaluated. Material and Methods: Forty-nine patients participated voluntarily in the study. All subjects had a history of chronic periodontitis, which had been previously treated. After the active treatment, 27 patients attended supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) and the rest did not (No SPT). The O’Leary plaque index and periodontal biotype were recorded for each subject and 246 Astra Tech® OsseospeedTM implants were radiographically analysed (123 placed in SPT patients and 123 in No SPT patients) at the time of loading and one year later, measuring marginal bone loss with the program Dental Studio NX 6.0®. The statistical analysis was performed with Windows SPSS, applying Pearson’s correlation index and the Kruskal-Wallis and U-Mann Whitney non-parametric tests. Results: Six patients were found to have periimplantitis and sixteen mucositis. The survival rate was 99.59% (100% SPT and 99.18% No SPT). Mean bone loss was 0.39 mm (range [-0.71 - 8.05]). Among SPT patients, 95% of the implants had losses less than or equal to the mean (mean bone loss of 0.16 mm) compared to 53.7% for the No SPT group (mean bone loss of 0.62 mm). A statistically significant relationship was demonstrated between bone loss around the implant and the patient’s periodontal biotype and plaque index. Conclusions: The marginal bone loss around implants in patients with treated chronic periodontitis is minimal if they are in a controlled SPT programme and there is individual control of plaque index. Moreover, the presence of a thin periodontal biotype represents a risk factor for additional bone loss. Key words:Peri-implantitis, chronic periodontitis, bacterial plaque, periodontal biotype.

No abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of a nonsurgical treatment protocol for peri‐implantitis and to evaluate the influence that some factors could have on the results of this treatment. Material and methods In this retrospective case series, patients with at least one implant with peri‐implantitis, treated with a nonsurgical protocol and with a one‐year follow‐up, were included. Clinical parameters (probing depth, recession, bleeding, and/or suppuration on probing) were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months. Radiographic bone levels were assessed in periapical radiographs taken at baseline and 12 months. An analysis of the factors significantly associated with marginal bone level changes was performed. Descriptive and analytic statistics were carried out at the patient and at the implant level, as well as a multiple linear regression analysis. Results Data from 37 patients with 70 implants were analyzed. There was a general and consistent improvement from baseline compared to all follow‐up points in the clinical variables. A significant radiographic bone gain of 0.91 mm was observed. The factors significantly associated were baseline plaque index, sex, and age at patient level, and type of prosthesis and implant location at implant level. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, this nonsurgical treatment protocol might be considered as a first treatment option for peri‐implantitis. More studies are needed, with larger sample sizes and longer follow‐ups, to confirm these outcomes and their long‐term stability.