Non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis: 12-month results

Nart, José; Pons, Ramón; Vallés, Cristina; Esmatges, Alejandro; Sanz‐Martín, Ignacio; Monje, Alberto

doi:10.1007/s00784-019-02943-8

Cited by 47 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite different non-surgical and surgical treatment strategies proposed for treating peri-implantitis, disease resolution is seldom the long-term outcome and even when achieved, recurrence may occur Carcuac et al, 2017;Cha et al, 2019;Fig uero et al, 2014;Nart et al, 2020;Roccuzzo et al, 2020;Roccuzzo et al, 2018;de Tapia et al, 2019). In light of this limited predictability, its prevention becomes of uttermost importance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri‐implant diseases: A university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Romandini

Lima

Pedrinaci

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

143

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimTo evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases and to identify risk/protective indicators of peri‐implantitis.Materials and MethodsTwo hundred and forty randomly selected patients from a university clinic database were invited to participate. Those who accepted, once data from their medical and dental history were collected, were examined clinically and radiographically to assess the prevalence of peri‐implant health and diseases. Peri‐implantitis was defined as the presence of BoP/SoP together with radiographic bone levels (BL) ≧2 mm. An intermediate peri‐implant health category between peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis was also identified, defined by the presence of BoP/SoP together with 1 mm ≦BL < 2 mm. A multilevel multivariate logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify those factors associated either positively (risk) or negatively (protective) with peri‐implantitis.ResultsNinety‐nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were analyzed. The prevalences of pre‐periimplantitis and of peri‐implantitis were, respectively, 31.3% and 56.6% at patient‐level, while 31.7% and 27.9% at implant level. The following factors were identified as risk indicators for peri‐implantitis: smoking (OR = 3.59; 95% CI: 1.52–8.45), moderate/severe periodontitis (OR = 2.77; 95% CI: 1.20–6.36), <16 remaining teeth (OR = 2.23; 95% CI: 1.05–4.73), plaque (OR = 3.49; 95% CI: 1.13–10.75), implant malposition (too vestibular: OR = 2.85; 95% CI: 1.17–6.93), implant brand (Nobel vs. Straumann: OR = 4.41;95% CI: 1.76–11.09), restoration type (bridge vs. single crown: OR = 2.47; 95% CI: 1.19–5.12), and trauma as reason of tooth loss (vs. caries: OR = 6.51; 95% CI: 1.45–29.26). Conversely, the following factors were identified as protective indicators: interproximal flossing/brushing (OR = 0.27; 95% CI: 0.11–0.68), proton pump inhibitors (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.90), and anticoagulants (OR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01–0.56).ConclusionsPeri‐implant diseases are highly prevalent among patients with dental implants in this university‐based population. Several factors were identified as risk‐ and protective‐ indicators of peri‐implantitis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri‐implant diseases: A university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Romandini

Lima

Pedrinaci

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

143

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite different non-surgical and surgical treatment strategies proposed for treating peri-implantitis, disease resolution is seldom the long-term outcome and even when achieved, recurrence and implant loss may occur Carcuac et al, 2017;Cha et al, 2019;de Tapia et al, 2019;Figuero et al, 2014;Heitz-Mayfield et al, 2018;Nart et al, 2020;Roccuzzo et al, 2018). In light of this limited predictability, its prevention and early diagnosis and treatment become the most appropriate strategy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri‐implant diseases: a university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Romandini

Lima

Pedrinaci

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo study the symptoms and perception reported by patients with peri‐implant diseases, as well as their signs and their potential impact on the oral health quality of life.Material and MethodsTwo hundred and forty randomly selected patients were invited to participate. As part of the history assessment, the patient OHIP‐14Sp was evaluated together with, for each implant, the patient perception regarding the peri‐implant health status and the history of pain, spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, suppuration, swelling, and discomfort during brushing. As part of the clinical examination, the following potential signs of peri‐implant diseases were collected: probing pocket depth (PPD), mucosal dehiscence (MD), extent of BoP, presence of SoP, and visual signs of redness and swelling. Those parameters were analyzed in relation to the actual peri‐implant health diagnosis.ResultsNinety‐nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were studied. Even in case of peri‐implantitis, 88.9% of the implants were perceived by the patients as healthy. The total OHIP‐14Sp sum score did not differ in relation to the peri‐implant health diagnosis. Increased reports of spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, swelling, and discomfort during brushing were observed in presence of disease. However, only a minor proportion of implants with peri‐implant diseases presented symptoms. PPD ≥ 6 mm was more frequent in diseased than in healthy implants (p < .01), while PPD ≥ 8 in pre‐peri‐implantitis/peri‐implantitis than in healthy/mucositis implants (p < .01). Implants with peri‐implantitis showed higher MD than implants without peri‐implantitis (p < .01).ConclusionPeri‐implant diseases are in most cases asymptomatic and not perceived by the patients. Despite being unable to accurately discriminate between peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis, PPD and MD resulted as the only two clinical signs associated with pre‐peri‐implantitis/peri‐implantitis.

show abstract

“…According to different clinical trials and reviews, the changed vector of World Workshops on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases, the most effective method of treatment will be several-stages protocol including the resolution of acute inflammation with the help of systemic antibiotics, mechanical and chemical preparation (disinfection) of implant surface in the case of sufficient implant stability and, afterwards, if needed, reconstructive surgery (use of bone grafts, guided bone regeneration, connective tissue transplants, and others) [8]. The nonsurgical treatment, in contrary, is considered as only supporting therapy for cases that are on the margin between loss and the successful treatment [11]. It should be said that nonsurgical treatment could also be adopted to treat patients who refuse surgical treatment for personal reasons and when we need to stabilize soft tissue conditions and bone resorption progression before thinking about surgical treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Case Series

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri-implantitis is one of the most important biological complication of dental implants. It has inflammatory nature, proved association with plaque accumulation in peri-implant tissues, and can be progressive on background of several factors, like comorbidity factors and bad habits. The prophylaxis and different methods of treatment were discussed during last 30 years, and surgical and nonsurgical techniques have their foes, benefits, and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the case series of various nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis with the use of protocols based on the application of local antibiotics (doxycycline, lincomycin, and erythromycin), mechanical and chemical debridement of dental implant surface, and mini-invasive regenerative technique with injections of bovine collagen. All these three cases demonstrated good results with the maintenance of bone level and absence of clinical signs of inflammation for at least a year according to the X-ray imaging (bone defect volume) and clinic assessments (probing depth, bleeding or suppuration, mucosa color, and pain presence).

show abstract

Non-surgical therapeutic outcomes of peri-implantitis: 12-month results

Cited by 47 publications

References 36 publications

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri‐implant diseases: A university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri‐implant diseases: A university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri‐implant diseases: a university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Case Series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About