Onset, progression and resolution of experimental peri‐implant mucositis at different abutment surfaces: A randomized controlled two‐centre study

Abstract

The onset, progression and resolution of experimental peri-implant mucositis lesions were comparable in both groups.

Preliminary evaluation of dental hygiene curriculum: Assessment and management of peri‐implant conditions and diseases

“…Schwarz et al. concluded from an extensive review of clinical trials from 2003 to 2017 a history of periodontitis, inadequate biofilm control, and lack of implant maintenance were the primary risks/indicators for peri‐mucositis and peri‐implantitis 13 . Karoussis et al.…”

“…The 1999 International Workshop for a classification of periodontal diseases and conditions did not include classifications or case definitions of peri‐implant diseases and conditions 17 . Since then, significant efforts to implement standardized case definitions and classifications for peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis have been developed not only for future research, but for patient management and prevention of peri‐implant diseases as well 7‐9,13,18‐22 . In 2017, the World Workshop developed a new classification scheme of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions 7 .…”

Cross-sectional evaluation of clinical and immunological parameters at partially microgrooved vs machined abutments in humans

“…The reason might be actually the aforementioned tighter and more tooth-like orientation of collagenous fibers into the laser microgrooves of the LMS abutment, which could help prevent microbial offenses in the peri-implant sulcus and lead to less proinflammatory activity (lower IL-6 level) in implants treated with LMS abutments. In a clinical study by Schwarz and coworkers comparing the incidence of experimental peri-implant mucositis, no differences concerning BOP were found in M vs LMS abutments [14] although this method could be limited related to individual influence of probing forces [9,10]. At the moment, there is a lack of knowledge about the immune response to well-tolerated titanium implants.…”

“…The aim of this cross-sectional, retrospective study was to analyze whether the surface characteristics of LMS abutments compared to M abutments influence the clinical parameters and if clinical parameters are correlated with inflammatory activity assessed by measuring cytokines in the PICF. The hypothesis of the present study is, based on previous clinical studies [ 14 , 30 ], that LMS abutments might induce lower levels of pro-inflammatory and higher levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines in the peri-implant crevicular fluid and consequently different peri-implant bone loss compared to conventional machined abutments.…”

“…Hence, additional diagnostic tools including possible biomarkers out of the peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) might have a potential for monitoring the early and late stages of peri-implant pathologies but needs to be proven in the future [8,11]. The onset of peri-implantitis is initiated by the host response to bacterial plaque biofilm formation and associated with clinical signs of inflammation [12][13][14]. Further, it has become apparent that the material could have an influence [15].…”