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.

Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.

Dental implant placement is a common treatment procedure in current dental practice. High implant survival rates as well as limited peri-implant bone loss has been achieved over the past decades due to continuous modifications of implant design and surface topography. Since the turn of the millennium, implant surface modifications have focused on stronger and faster bone healing. This has not only yielded higher implant survival rates but also allowed modifications in surgical as well as prosthetic treatment protocols such as immediate implant placement and immediate loading. Stable crestal bone levels have been considered a key factor in implant success because it is paramount for long-term survival, aesthetics as well as peri-implant health. Especially during the past decade, clinicians and researchers have paid much attention to peri-implant health and more specifically to the incidence of bone loss. This could furthermore increase the risk for peri-implantitis, the latter often diagnosed as ongoing bone loss and pocket formation beyond the normal biological range in the presence of purulence or bleeding on probing. Information on the effect of surface topography on bone loss or peri-implantitis, a disease process that is to be evaluated in the long-term, is also scarce. Therefore, the current narrative review discusses whether long-term peri-implant bone loss beyond physiological bone adaptation is affected by the surface roughness of dental implants. Based on comparative studies, evaluating implants with comparable design but different surface roughness, it can be concluded that average peri-implant bone loss around the moderately rough and minimally rough surfaces is less than around rough surfaces. However, due to the multifactorial cause for bone loss the clinical impact of surface roughness alone on bone loss and peri-implantitis risk seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that certain patient factors, such as a history of periodontal disease and smoking, lead to more peri-implant bone loss.

Initial bone remodelling was affected by soft tissue thickness. Anticipating biologic width re-establishment by adapting the vertical position of the implant seemed highly successful to avoid implant surface exposure.

Aim: To compare connective tissue graft (CTG) with collagen matrix (CMX) in terms of changes over time in buccal soft tissue profile (BSP) when applied at single implant sites.Materials and methods: Patients with a single tooth gap in the anterior maxilla and horizontal mucosa defect were enrolled in a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.All sites had a bucco-palatal bone dimension of at least 6 mm and received a single implant and immediate implant restoration using a full digital workflow. Sites were randomly allocated to the control (CTG) or test group (CMX: Geistlich Fibro-Gide ® , Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) to increase buccal soft tissue thickness.Primary outcome was increase in BSP at T1 (immediately after operation) and T2(3 months) based on superimposed digital surface models. Secondary parameters included patient-reported clinical and aesthetic outcomes.Results: Thirty patients were included per group (control: 50% females, mean age 50; test: 53% females, mean age 48). Even though surgeons applied thicker grafts when using CMX, sites treated with CMX demonstrated 0.78 mm (95% CI 0.41-1.14) more shrinkage between T1 and T2 than sites treated with CTG. The final increase in BSP was 1.15 mm (95% CI 0.88-1.43) for CTG and 0.85 mm (95% CI 0.58-1.13) for CMX. The mean difference of 0.30 mm (95% CI À0.01 to 0.61) at T2 in favour of CTG was of borderline significance (p = .054). There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of post-operative bleeding (p = .344), pain (p = .331), number of analgesics taken (p = .504), oedema (p = .227), and pink aesthetic score (p = .655). VAS for post-operative haematoma was 6.56 (95% CI 0.54-12.59) lower for CMX, and surgery time could be reduced by 9.03 min (95% CI 7.04-11.03) when applying CMX. However, CMX resulted in significantly more marginal bone loss (0.38 mm; 95% CI 0.15-0.60), deeper pockets (0.30 mm; 95% CI 0.06-0.54), and more mid-facial recession (0.75 mm; 95% CI 0.39-1.12) than CTG.Clinical trial registration: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04210596).