Prevention and management of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years

Derks, Jan; Ichioka, Yuki; Dionigi, Carlotta; Trullenque‐Eriksson, Anna; Berglundh, Jessica; Tomasi, Cristiano; Graziani, Filippo

doi:10.1111/clr.13925

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 It is even more interesting that to define the onset and pattern of progression of peri-implantitis in their population, the assessment was solely based on radiographic and not clinical signs of progressive MBL. 11 In this same sense, it is important to note that, although some studies associate clinical parameters to the severity of peri-implant diseases, 34 the meta-analytic evaluation of more than 4000 patients treated with more than 9500 implants of different brands and treatment protocols found no correlation between mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing with mean MBL, which was also irrespective of follow-up. 3 Based on the definition of peri-implantitis at 0.5 mm of radiographical bone loss, used by Derks and colleagues in 2016, in the analyzed Swedish population, with a really good dental and implantology tradition, and a very good public health system, a 45% of patients and 24.9% of implants would have peri-implantitis; almost half the population in their random sample would show peri-implantitis and one in four implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is even more interesting that to define the onset and pattern of progression of peri‐implantitis in their population, the assessment was solely based on radiographic and not clinical signs of progressive MBL 11 . In this same sense, it is important to note that, although some studies associate clinical parameters to the severity of peri‐implant diseases, 34 the meta‐analytic evaluation of more than 4000 patients treated with more than 9500 implants of different brands and treatment protocols found no correlation between mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing with mean MBL, which was also irrespective of follow‐up 3 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Galindo‐Moreno

Catena

Pérez‐Sayáns

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to establish an objective criterion in terms of marginal bone level (MBL) to know the prognosis of an implant. Materials and Methods A group of 176 patients in whom 590 implants were placed were included in this retrospective study. Patients older than 18 years, presenting either Kennedy class I or II edentulous section, or totally edentulous at least in one of the dental arches were included in this study. Those with any type of disturbance able to alter bone metabolism or with nontreated periodontal disease were excluded. Data on radiographic MBL at loading, 6 and 18 months later, age, gender, smoking habits, history of periodontitis, bone substratum, implant, and prosthetic features were recorded. Nonparametric receiver operating curves (ROC) were constructed for the MBL at 18 months in order to establish a distinction among high bone loser (HBL) and low bone loser (LBL) implants. Differences as a function of main variables were also determined, particularly abutment height and periodontal disease. Results HBL implants lost at least 0.48 mm of MBL 6 months after loading; they reached at least 2 mm of MBL 18 months after loading. MBL rate followed a nonlinear trend, except in implants restored over long prosthetic abutments and in patients with history of severe periodontitis; in whom the rate of MBL over the time was nearly zero. Conclusion Implants that lose more than 0.5 mm of marginal bone 6 months after loading are at great risk of not being radiographically successful anymore. Therefore, 0.5 mm of MBL is proposed as a distinctive and objective criterion of success in Implant Dentistry within a 6‐month follow‐up period. A prosthetic abutment height ≥2 mm resulted the most protective factor in the peri‐implant bone maintenance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Galindo‐Moreno

Catena

Pérez‐Sayáns

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most frequently reported outcomes in studies addressing the treatment of peri‐implantitis are probing pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) changes (Derks, Ichioka, et al, 2022). A recent consensus meeting on bone regeneration recommended the use of a composite outcome variable which describes clinical measures of inflammation (presence or absence of BOP/SOP), probing depth and bone level changes and changes in peri‐implant mucosal levels (Jepsen et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgical peri‐implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial

Heitz‐Mayfield

Heitz²,

Koong³

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri‐implantitis treatment.Materials and MethodsForty participants, with peri‐implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change.ResultsAll 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12‐month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro‐intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines.ConclusionSimilar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups.Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017).

show abstract

“…There seems to be no consensus on treatment standards for the management of peri‐implant diseases (Derks et al, 2022; Figuero et al, 2014; Renvert et al, 2013; Schwarz & Ramanauskaite, 2022). This is attributable to the high heterogeneity in the use of different therapeutic approaches, showing moderately successful treatment outcomes (Renvert & Polyzois, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of adjunctive measures in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Liñares

Sanz‐Sánchez

Dopico

et al. 2023

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of patient‐performed or administered adjunctive measures to non‐surgical peri‐implantitis therapy in terms of probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions. Materials and Methods Randomized and controlled clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow‐up were searched in three databases. Secondary outcomes included implant loss, disease resolution, recurrence of peri‐implantitis, need of re‐treatment, changes in marginal bone levels, patient‐reported outcomes and adverse effects. Results Of 567 titles, 10 publications, reporting 9 investigations, were included. Three types of adjunctive measures were found (local/systemic antimicrobials and probiotics). Four studies evaluated the effects of local antimicrobials (i.e., minocycline microspheres, chlorhexidine chips or a metronidazole + amoxicillin gel), three studies evaluated systemic antimicrobials (either amoxicillin + metronidazole or metronidazole alone) and two studies evaluated probiotics (Lactobacillus reuteri strains). The addition of local antimicrobials led to modest improvements in PD reduction. Systemic antimicrobials showed significantly greater reductions in PD and BoP, especially at initially deep sites (PD > 6 mm). Due to the large heterogeneity among included studies, no meta‐analyses were performed. Conclusions Different adjunctive measures in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis have different impact in terms of PD and BoP reductions. Improved PD reductions result after the use of systemic antimicrobials, and to a lesser extent, after the use of local antimicrobials.

show abstract

Prevention and management of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis: A systematic review of outcome measures used in clinical studies in the last 10 years

Cited by 16 publications

References 43 publications

Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Early marginal bone loss around dental implants to define success in implant dentistry: A retrospective study

Surgical peri‐implantitis treatment with and without guided bone regeneration. A randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of adjunctive measures in the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About