Microbiome and Microbial Biofilm Profiles of Peri‐Implantitis: A Systematic Review

Lafaurie, Gloria Inés; Sabogal, María Alejandra; Castillo, Diana Marcela; Rincón, María Victoria; Gómez, Luz Amparo; Lesmes, Yamil Augusto; Chambrone, Leandro

doi:10.1902/jop.2017.170123

Cited by 234 publications

(206 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(384 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is, however, generally agreed that both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis have an infectious etiology through the development of biofilm composed of a plethora of bacteria with known pathogenicity. [21][22][23][24]…”

Section: Peri -Impl Ant Dis E a S E Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

Renvert

Persson

Pirih

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

388

392

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this review is to identify case definitions and clinical criteria of peri-implant healthy tissues, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. The case definitions were constructed based on a review of the evidence applicable for diagnostic considerations. In summary, the diagnostic definition of peri-implant health is based on the following criteria: 1) absence of peri-implant signs of soft tissue inflammation (redness, swelling, profuse bleeding on probing), and 2) the absence of further additional bone loss following initial healing. The diagnostic definition of peri-implant mucositis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation (redness, swelling, line or drop of bleeding within 30 seconds following probing), combined with 2) no additional bone loss following initial healing. The clinical definition of peri-implantitis is based on following criteria: 1) presence of peri-implant signs of inflammation, 2) radiographic evidence of bone loss following initial healing, and 3) increasing probing depth as compared to probing depth values collected after placement of the prosthetic reconstruction. In the absence of previous radiographs, radiographic bone level ≥3 mm in combination with BOP and probing depths ≥6 mm is indicative of peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Section: Peri -Impl Ant Dis E a S E Smentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

Renvert

Persson

Pirih

et al. 2018

J Clinic Periodontology

388

392

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they did not report results about unusual pathogens. It is important to note that Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas have been related to unsuccessful implants . The present investigation concluded that the presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was significantly associated with cemented restored implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas colonization in mucositis and peri‐implantitis of implants restored with cemented and screwed reconstructions: A cross‐sectional study

Ramón-Morales

Medina

2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To evaluate the association between Gram‐negative enteric rods and Pseudomonas with mucositis and peri‐implantitis, in implants restored with cemented and screw‐retained reconstructions. Materials and Methods Individuals treated with implants, diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis and or peri‐implantitis, participated in this study. Microbiota from the implant and the gingival sulcus of two neighboring teeth were also studied. The microorganisms were identified using matrix‐assisted laser desorption/ionization time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry. Results A total of 52 and 51 implants cemented and screwed restored were evaluated in 31 patients. The presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas (P = .01) was significantly higher in the cemented restored implants. When the unit of analysis was the implant, the presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants after adjustment for possible confounders (odds ratio [OR] = 3.7; 95% CI, 1.4‐10; P = .01); besides, peri‐implantitis was statistically significant in the multivariate model (P = .008). Considering the patient as a unit of analysis, peri‐implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants (OR = 9.4; 95% CI, 2‐46; P = .006); this statistically significant association remained after adjusting for potential confounders (OR = 6.8; 95% CI, 1.3‐37; P = .02). Conclusion The presence of Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas was associated with cemented restored implants; besides, peri‐implantitis was associated with cemented restored implants.

show abstract

“…The interface between teeth and composite was extremely polished forming a smooth surface to reduce the risk of peri-implantitis which represents a heterogeneous mixed infection that includes colonization of periodontopathic microorganisms. 5 Esthetics, phonetics, and fit were confirmed. After shade matching with composite resin, the provisional restorations were polished and inserted in the patient's mouth.…”

Section: Clinical Reportmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Then, the connected provisional restoration was removed from the implant and composite resins were smoothed and used to contour the subgingival portion to capture the cervical gingival emergence of the extracted teeth given the importance of subgingival contour which supported the peri‐implant tissue in anterior zone (Figure ). The interface between teeth and composite was extremely polished forming a smooth surface to reduce the risk of peri‐implantitis which represents a heterogeneous mixed infection that includes colonization of periodontopathic microorganisms …”

Section: Clinical Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of extracted anterior teeth as provisional restorations and surgical guide for immediate multiple implant placement: A clinical case report

Ladino

Rosselli

2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this article is to describe the use of natural anterior teeth as a surgical guide to implant placement and provisional restoration for a young patient with root resorption of upper central incisors and left‐lateral incisor. Clinical considerations Achieving soft tissue esthetics is quite a challenge in implant dentistry. Here, a case of immediate implant placement using the natural teeth of the patient as an immediate provisional restoration, which achieves satisfactory results in terms of soft tissue architecture. Conclusions Post‐extraction implant placement in combination with immediate loading of dental implants has been evolving into an appropriate procedure for the treatment of partially edentulous anterior maxilla. Different techniques that include use of the own teeth as provisional implant supported restoration helps to maintain architecture of gingival contour, specially papilla. Clinical significance Natural architecture of anterior soft tissue is a big challenge in implant dentistry. Use of natural teeth as a surgical guide and provisional restorations might be helpful to obtain an optimal outcome.

show abstract

Microbiome and Microbial Biofilm Profiles of Peri‐Implantitis: A Systematic Review

Cited by 234 publications

References 57 publications

Peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

Peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations

Gram‐negative enteric rods/Pseudomonas colonization in mucositis and peri‐implantitis of implants restored with cemented and screwed reconstructions: A cross‐sectional study

Use of extracted anterior teeth as provisional restorations and surgical guide for immediate multiple implant placement: A clinical case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About