Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Fu, Jia; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.1016/j.cden.2015.06.004

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 123 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were reported in the studies of Heitz-Mayfield [31] and Papathanasiou et al [54]. By contrast, the study by John et al [52] indicated that surface roughness does not appear to be the only factor influencing the amount and rate of biofilm formation. In addition, Dalago et al [55] attempted to establish the potential risk factors for peri-implantitis and concluded that the surface features of the implants were not related to the prevalence of this disease.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…The study by Schwarz et al [20] reported the use of plastic curettes and saline solution, while Matarasso et al [17] used implantoplasty combined with jets of glycine-based powder. Regarding surface decontamination method, the literature is inconclusive in terms of the most suitable approach [10,47,52]. This corroborates the findings from the present review, in which several methods of decontamination were used during surgical access.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Therefore, the PD and BOP values described at the beginning of the study may be different from those found before the surgical intervention, as they included a non-surgical treatment phase. Implants with peri-implant disease and PD ≥ 8 mm, or with 50% or greater loss of implant length have no indication for conservative treatment, and thus should be removed [10,52].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Alves¹,

Duarte

Martinez

et al. 2019

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the outcomes of the treatment of peri-implant defects, using Guided Bone Regeneration. Methods: A literature search was performed based on the PICO methodology in the PubMed/Medline, SciELO, Lilacs electronic databases, CAPES periodicals and the Cochrane Library. We included studies using bovine mineral matrix, associated to a collagen membrane for the treatment of peri-implantitis by Guided Bone Regeneration. Results: Of 1,163 studies, 10 were included in this review after applying the evaluation criteria. A total of 269 implants were treated in 260 patients. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months. The studies evaluated outcome in terms of reduction in probing depth, gain of clinical attachment and healing of the bony defect. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to perform meta-analysis. Conclusion: Treatment of peri-implant lesions with Guided Bone Regeneration is a viable modality of treatment, providing reduction in bleeding on probing, as well as gain of clinical attachment. Complete filling of the defect is, however, an unpredictable result.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Alves¹,

Duarte

Martinez

et al. 2019

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For this purpose, tips have been modified or coated with different materials, such as carbon fibers, plastic, and silicon. Unfortunately, most of these instruments have often been judged as ineffective in thoroughly removing biofilm (36). In addition, material remnants and contaminations are possible, which should not be neglected in this context.…”

Section: Discussion Question 1: Augmentative Procedures -For Which Dementioning

confidence: 99%

Regenerative Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis: An Umbrella Review of Answered/Unanswered Questions and Future Perspectives

Solderer

Schmidlin

2020

Front. Dent. Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To systemically summarize current knowledge about regeneration of peri-implant defects based on available systematic reviews.Materials and Methods: A systematic search for review articles published between 2010 and 2020 in four databases was conducted. Only systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Based on the available literature, five questions of clinical importance on indication for regenerative approaches, surgical technique, methods of decontamination, outcome of therapy and adjunctive use of biological factors were formulated and answered.Results: The electronic search resulted in 312 studies, from which 264 studies were published between 2010 and 2020. Finally, 18 systematic reviews and one consensus report were chosen. Data of the included studies were based on 58 to 840 implants. Data on over 4.904 implants were assessed. From the 19 studies that were included, 15 assessed the outcome of regenerative therapy; three, the surgical protocol of regenerative therapy; two, the use of laser in regenerative therapy; and one, the additional use of growth factors in regenerative peri-implant therapy. Three studies assessed more than one topic.Conclusions: In general, a partial bone fill can be expected in 85% of regenerative procedures. Regeneration leads to a mean of 57% of greater bone fill, compared to open flap surgery only. Defect configuration plays a crucial role in the outcome, whereas the role and extent of benefit of different surgical protocols are still not clear.

show abstract

“…Moreover, alveolar bone defects around the implant destroyed by peri-implantitis cannot be regenerated in a reliable and predictable way, although various efforts to do so have been made over the last few decades [ 6 ]. Hence, prevention of peri-mucositis, the precursor of peri-implantitis, has been suggested as the best approach to treat peri-implantitis [ 7 ]. If an infection of supporting tissues around the implant cannot be properly controlled, it will eventually result in loss of the implant [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implantitis in Korean patients with a history of periodontal disease: a cross-sectional study

Goh

Hong

Chang

2017

J Periodontal Implant Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implantitis in Korean patients with history of periodontal disease.MethodsA total of 444 patients with 1,485 implants were selected from patients who had been treated at the Department of Periodontology, Chonbuk National University Dental Hospital between July 2014 and June 2015. A group with a history of peri-implantitis (HP) (370 patients with 1,189 implants) and a group with a current peri-implantitis (CP) (318 patients with 1,004 implants) were created based on the radiographic and clinical assessments of implants. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was calculated at both the patient and implant levels. The influence of risk variables on the occurrence of peri-implantitis was analyzed using generalized estimating equations analysis.ResultsThe prevalence of peri-implantitis in the HP and CP groups ranged from 6.7% to 19.7%. The cumulative peri-implantitis rate in the HP group estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method was higher than that in the CP group over the follow-up period. Among the patient-related risk variables, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) was the only significant risk indicator for the occurrence of peri-implantitis in both groups. In the analysis of implant-related variables, implants supporting fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) and implants with subjective discomfort were associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis than single implants and implants without subjective discomfort in the HP group. The presence of subjective discomfort was the only significant implant-related variable predictive of peri-implantitis in the CP group.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, the prevalence of peri-implantitis in Korean patients with a history of periodontal disease was similar to that reported in other population samples. Regular SPT was important for preventing peri-implantitis. Single implants were found to be less susceptible to peri-implantitis than those supporting FDP. Patients' subjective discomfort was found to be a strong risk indicator for peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Cited by 11 publications

References 123 publications

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Regenerative Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis: An Umbrella Review of Answered/Unanswered Questions and Future Perspectives

Prevalence and risk indicators of peri-implantitis in Korean patients with a history of periodontal disease: a cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About