Biologic Markers of Failing Implants

Emecen‐Huja, Pinar; Hasan, Iquebal; Miller, Craig S.

doi:10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.007

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 126 , 129 The promising markers for bone resorption are also OPG, receptor activator of the nuclear factor kappa B (RANK) and receptor activator of the nuclear factor kappa B ligand (RANKL). 111 , 130 Pro-inflammatory mediators induce osteoclastogenesis by promotion of RANK expression and OPG suppression. RANKL, also known as the osteoclast differentiation factor, binds directly to RANK.…”

Section: Human Markers Of Piidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: where are we now?

Pokrowiecki¹,

Mielczarek²,

Zaręba

et al. 2017

TCRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri-implant infective diseases (PIIDs) in oral implantology are commonly known as peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and periimplantitis (PI). While PIM is restricted to the peri-implant mucosa and is reversible, PI also affects implant-supporting bone and, therefore, is very difficult to eradicate. PIIDs in clinical outcome may resemble gingivitis and periodontitis, as they share similar risk factors. However, recent study in the field of proteomics and other molecular studies indicate that PIIDs exhibit significant differences when compared to periodontal diseases. This review aims to elucidate the current knowledge of PIIDs, their etiopathology and diversified microbiology as well as the role of molecular studies, which may be a key to personalized diagnostic and treatment protocols of peri-implant infections in the near future.

show abstract

Section: Human Markers Of Piidmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: where are we now?

Pokrowiecki¹,

Mielczarek²,

Zaręba

et al. 2017

TCRM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, pro‐inflammatory cytokines demonstrate the strongest association with PIP . However, additional studies are needed to establish their validity, help predict susceptibility, identify early biological indicators of failing implants and better quantify response to therapy …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…20,27,28,35,36 However, additional studies are needed to establish their validity, help predict susceptibility, identify early biological indicators of failing implants and better quantify response to therapy. 37 Based on these findings, we hypothesized that concentrations of IL-1β, MMP-8, and MIP-1α would demonstrate a biological response to surgical and antimicrobial therapy relative to clinical improvement. Hence the concentrations of IL-1β, MMP-8, and MIP-1α in PICF samples from healthy dental implants were compared with PICF from PIP implants before and after surgical treatment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological response to peri‐implantitis treatment

Bhavsar

Miller

Ebersole

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate biological markers of peri‐implantitis (PIP) in crevicular fluid before and after surgical and antimicrobial therapy. Material and Methods Forty‐eight participants (24 healthy implants and 24 PIP) were clinically evaluated, and peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected at baseline for both groups, and at 3‐months after surgical and antimicrobial treatment (ie, n = 21 PIP completers). Samples were analyzed for interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8), and macrophage inflammatory protein‐1α (MIP‐1α) using immunoassay and the results compared between groups. Results Peri‐implantitis sites at baseline demonstrated significantly higher mean periodontal probing depths, percentage bleeding on probing (P ≤ 0.001), and mean IL‐1β concentration in PICF compared to healthy implant sites (17.9 vs 1.7 pg/μL; P = 0.02). Three months after treatment, periodontal probing depths, bleeding on probing, suppuration (P < 0.05), and the mean concentration of MMP‐8 decreased significantly compared with baseline (12.1 vs 6.7 ng/μL, P = 0.04). MIP‐1α concentrations showed no differences between the groups. Conclusion Elevated concentrations of IL‐1β in PICF were consistent with PIP. A decrease in MMP‐8 concentration in PICF at three months after treatment is consistent with a healing biological response.

show abstract

“…Sequencing methods that evaluate the entire microbiome are needed to improve identification of microorganisms (pathogen, opportunistic, noncultivable, drug-resistant ones) associated to peri-implant infective diseases and to develop suitable countermeasures with the expertise of clinical oral microbiologists [59]. In addition, emerging approach based on optical nanoprobes, biosensors, and protein biomarkers suitable for peri-implant crevicular fluids has been proposed to identify the severity and progression of the disease and the response to therapy [60,61].…”

Section: Focus On Molecular Biology Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection Control in Dentistry and Drug-Resistant Infectious Agents: A Burning Issue. Part 1

Barenghi¹,

Barenghi²,

Blasio³

2020

Surgical Infections - Some Facts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using molecular biological methods and retrospective investigations, some outbreaks in dental settings have been proven to be caused by mainly blood-borne viruses and water-borne bacteria. Nowadays, drug-resistant bacteria seem further hazards taking into account the worldwide overuse of antibiotics in dentistry, the limited awareness on infection prevention guidelines, and the lapses and errors during infection prevention (reported in more detail in Part 2). We chose MRSA and VRE as markers since they are considered prioritized bacteria according antibiotic resistance threats. Antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections inside of dental setting are relevant, and we argue about some hazards in dentistry, including dedicated surgeries. MRSA has a key role for its colonization in patients and dental workers, presence on gloves, resistance (days-months on dry inanimate surfaces), the contamination of different clinical contact surfaces in dental settings, the ability of some strains to produce biofilm, and finally its estimated low infective dose. For better dental patient and healthcare personnel safety, we need evidence-based guidelines to improve education and training initiatives in surgery.

show abstract

Biologic Markers of Failing Implants

Cited by 12 publications

References 53 publications

Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: where are we now?

Oral microbiome and peri-implant diseases: where are we now?

Biological response to peri‐implantitis treatment

Infection Control in Dentistry and Drug-Resistant Infectious Agents: A Burning Issue. Part 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About