Search Results (13)

Background: The aim of the present narrative review is to synthesize the available scientific evidence on the effects of submarginal instrumentation with periodontal endoscopy and evaluate its’ potential efficacy in terms of the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Methods: The literature search was performed via electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus, and was supplemented by manual searching. A literature review was conducted addressing the following PICOS questions: (1) What is the efficacy of non-surgical submarginal instrumentation of the implant surface with the aid of a periodontal endoscope in patients with peri-implantitis? (2) What is the efficacy of non-surgical subgingival instrumentation performed with the aid of a periodontal endoscope compared with conventional subgingival instrumentation in patients with periodontitis, in terms of clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes? Mechanical decontamination of the implant surface is crucial for resolving inflammation and arresting further bone loss. However, there is no consensus on the most effective treatment. Non-surgical therapy remains the initial intervention, focused on biofilm removal to control the disease, although with limited capability to achieve complete disease resolution as the presence of threads and the complex-structured implant surface hinder effective biofilm removal. This evokes the need for providing supporting technologies such as periodontal endoscopy, which enables direct visualization and precision, potentially enhancing the outcomes and reducing the necessity for surgical procedures and their associated risks. Within the limitations of this narrative review, periodontal endoscopy may offer a less tissue-invasive approach. Larger prospective studies and RCTs are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinicians in determining periodontal endoscopy’s suitability based on specific case characteristics. Full article

This systematic review of RCTs aimed to characterize short- and long-term changes in peri-implantitis-associated microbiota (total biofilm microbial load and predominant pathogens’ counts) following (any) peri-implantitis treatment in systemically healthy, non-smoking, partially/totally edentulous adults. The study protocol, compliant with the PRISMA statement, was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024514521) before the literature search. Data from 11 RCTs, assessed through the ROBINS-2 tool, were qualitatively synthesized. No data were retrieved on total edentulism, healthy peri-implant/periodontal sites, treated mucositis, gingivitis, and periodontitis sites. Shortly after treatment, Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and Peptostreptococcus micros prevailed, indicating early colonization, as after implant placement. After both surgical and non-surgical approaches, although not eradicated, the peri-implant total biofilm load, red- and orange-complex species, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans counts generally decreased for up to about three months. However, one month after treatment, red-complex species and Prevotella intermedia increased, likely due to persistent tissue-invasive bacteria, unresolved pathological conditions (high probing depth values) favoring anaerobiosis and dysbiosis, and a qualitatively and quantitatively decreased biofilm community, competing and balancing the predominant pathogens (biofilm “competitive balancing” effect), thus allowing recolonization by more virulent bacteria. Red-complex bacteria gradually leveled off to baseline at the six- and twelve-month follow-ups. Fusobacterium nucleatum remained almost unchanged after treatment. Full article

Peri-implant diseases including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are among the major causes of failure of implant-supported dental restorations. They are characterized by progressive inflammation of the peri-implant mucosa, extending to the surrounding connective tissues and leading to bone loss and implant failure. Although strict oral hygiene practices help in preventing peri-implant diseases, plaque buildup around the implant restoration leads to chronic inflammation, due to the adherent bacterial biofilm. While mechanical debridement and non-surgical therapy to remove inflamed connective tissue (ICT) form the mainstay of treatment, additional local adjunctive therapies enhance clinical outcomes. Topical oxygen therapy is known to reduce inflammation, increase vascularity, and act as a bacteriostatic measure. The use of oxygen-based therapy (blue^®m) products as a local adjunctive therapy for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis can result in clinical outcomes similar to that of conventional local adjuncts such as chlorhexidine, antibiotics, and antibacterial agents. This report aims to present the clinical findings of patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, who were managed using local oxygen-based therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical therapy. In addition, a review of the literature about commonly used local adjuncts for peri-implant diseases has been included in the report to provide a means of comparison between conventional local adjunct therapy and topical oxygen-based therapy. Based on the reported findings and reviewed literature, local oxygen-based adjunct therapy was equally effective as conventionally used local adjuncts such as antibiotics, antibacterials, and probiotics, in treating patients with peri-implant diseases. Full article

(1) Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of combining chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: Articles from 2016 to 2021 included in the PubMed and Scopus databases were analyzed, following the PICOS criteria and the randomized controlled study model that used chlorhexidine in various forms in the treatment of peri-mucositis. According to the established criteria, a limited number of studies were selected. These studies had as their criteria of evaluation for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine, plaque indices, bleeding indices and depth probing indices. Chlorhexidine has been used after mechanical debridement as a solution, with different concentrations of 0.06%/0.12%/0.2% alone or in a concentration of 0.03%, in combination with 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride, as well as in the form of a gel with a concentration of 0.2%. (3) Results: The results were assessed to a placebo or other substances, and showed a significant reduction in the indices with a follow-up period ranging from 3 months to 1 year. (4) Conclusions: The association of chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has a role in reducing inflammation, although a complete remission was not obtained in all cases, and the results were not statistically significantly different from the use of other antiseptics. Full article

(1) Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis may reduce inflammatory markers and halt the progression of the condition to peri-implantitis. Adjunctive laser treatment may have therapeutic benefits that are not yet well known. The aim of this study was to determine the advantages and limitations of laser therapy as an adjuvant in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: A total of 42 patients with at least 2 implants situated in different hemiarches were included in this study and divided into two groups: G1 (received laser therapy) and G2 (no laser therapy). Periodontal health status indices were recorded at the initial moment (T0), and all patients underwent non-surgical debridement therapy accompanied by oral hygiene training. In patients from group G1, one implant site received adjuvant laser therapy (subgroup IL), and the other one did not receive active laser light (IC). The plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) values recorded after 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2) were analyzed and compared with those at T0. (3) Results: PI values considerably reduced at moment T1 and T2 for both G1 and G2 (p = 0.0031). PPD was also reduced, but the difference between the groups and the three recording moments was not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the BOP values between G1 IL and G1 IC for T0/T1 (p = 0.0182) and T1/T2 (p < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference between G2 and G1 IL or G1 IC. (4) Conclusions: Laser therapy as an adjunct to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis leads to a statistically significant reduction in bleeding on probing at 3-month and 6-month re-evaluations. Moreover, it leads to an evident reduction in probing depth but with no statistical significance. These results should be interpreted with caution, and more in-depth research should be performed to create a complete laser therapy protocol for peri-implant mucositis. Full article

Background: The recent publication of the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant disease has given clear indications on the parameters to be taken into consideration to correctly diagnose the different phases of these diseases. To date, however, there are no equally clear indications on the treatments to be implemented to solve these diseases. The objective of this Consensus Report is to provide guidance for the non-surgical management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. For the drafting of the consensus, the most recent scientific literature was analysed. Materials and Methods: A group of 15 expert Italian dental hygienists were selected by the Italian technical-scientific societies (AIDI, UNID and ATASIO) and, starting from the literature review, they formulated indications according to the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, a tool for rating the quality of evidence, used to draw up systematic reviews and clinical guidelines) on the treatment of peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis and on management of the various implanting surfaces. Conclusions: in accordance with the international literature, non-surgical therapy alone can resolve peri-implant mucositis, but not peri-implantitis. Several adjunctive therapies have been considered and some appear to be helpful in managing inflammation. Full article

Peri-implant diseases are an emerging public health problem, and it’s considered that limitations of standard diagnostics play the role herein. The study objective was the estimation of pathological bone resorption at clinical and biological level in patients with peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) before and 6 months after standard treatment and to compare them with healthy controls (HC). The split-mouth interventional study included 60 patients affected with PIM or PI. Patients that also presented at least one more HC were enrolled in the study and underwent standard non-surgical and surgical treatment, respectively. Standard clinical parameters and soluble levels of RANKL were measured in peri-implant crevicular fluid baseline and 6 months following treatment. Clinical parameters and RANKL significantly decreased following treatment in PIM and PI. However, bleeding on probing and probing depth remained significantly increased when compared to HC. RANKL answered requests for biomarker of peri-implant diseases, its baseline levels were significantly increased in PIM and PI, they decreased following treatment and reached HC in peri-implantitis, while in PIM RANKL remained significantly increased. Presence of pathological bone resorption in patients lacked its clinical signs, and respective persistence following treatment suggest the need for biomarker-supported diagnosis for timely diagnosis of peri-implantitis and appropriate orientation of respective management strategies. Full article

sTREM-1 and its ligand PGLYRP1 play an essential role in the inflammatory process around teeth and implants. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of peri-implant treatment on the salivary levels of the sTREM-1/PGLYRP-1/MMP-8 axis after 3 months. A total of 42 participants (with a mean age of 61 years old ± 7.3) were enrolled in this longitudinal study, 24 having peri-implant mucositis (MU) and 18 having peri-implantitis (PI). Clinical peri-implant parameters, such as probing pocket depth (PPD), % of plaque, and bleeding on probing (BOP), and the whole unstimulated saliva samples were evaluated at baseline and 3 months after treatment. The MU group received nonsurgical peri-implant treatment, while the PI group received open-flap procedures. The levels of sTREM-1, PGLYRP-1, MMP-8, and TIMP-1 were analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. BOP, plaque levels, and PPD significantly reduced after treatment in both groups. A significant decrease in the salivary levels of sTREM-1, MMP-8, and TIMP-1 in the PI group and PGLYRP1 and TIMP-1 in the MU group were observed. Salivary levels of sTREM-1 were significantly reduced in patients with PI but not with MU. Additionally, peri-implant treatment had a significantly higher impact on MMP-8 reduction in patients with PI than in those with MU. Full article

Peri-implant mucositis is a pathological condition characterized by an inflammatory process in the peri-implant soft tissues. Progression to peri-implantitis takes place in case of peri-implant bone resorption. Recently, an aid for non-surgical treatment by mechanical debridement (SRP) has been identified in probiotics. As there are no recent studies regarding their use for peri-implant mucositis, the aim of this study was to test a new postbiotic gel for this clinical condition. A split-mouth randomized clinical trial was performed. Twenty patients undergoing SRP were randomly assigned to two treatments based on the following oral gels: chlorhexidine-based Curasept Periodontal Gel (Group 1) and postbiotic-based Biorepair Parodontgel Intensive (Group 2). At baseline (T0) and after three (T1) and six (T2) months, the following peri-implant mucositis indexes were recorded: Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), Bleeding Score (BS), Marginal Mucosal Condition (MMC). A significant decrease is reported for both postbiotic and chlorhexidine for all peri-implant mucositis indices studied. Quite the opposite, no significant variation was present in intergroup comparisons. Greater improvements for BS, GBI and MMC inflammatory indices of the postbiotic gel compared to chlorhexidine suggest the importance of further studies to investigate the relevance of the product alone. Full article

Background and Objectives: Peri-implantitis treatment is still undefined. Regenerative treatment is expensive and technically demanding due to the need to handle biomaterials, membranes and different methodologies of decontamination. Resective treatment and implantoplasty might be a viable solution. This case series presents a 24 month retrospective observational study of 10 peri-implantitis patients treated with implantoplasty. Materials and Methods: In the present case series, 10 peri-implantitis patients (20 implants) were treated with a resective approach and implantoplasty. Previous to implantoplasty, all patients underwent non-surgical treatment. This surgery consisted in a full-thickness flap and implant surface exposure. The exposed non-osseointegrated implant body was submitted to implantoplasty. The flap was apically repositioned and sutured. Patients were accompanied for 24 months. Results: The mean initial probing depth (PD) (PD = 5.37 ± 0.86 mm), bleeding on probing (BoP = 0.12 ± 0.06%) and suppuration (Sup = 0.01 ± 0.01%) decreased significantly at the 12 month evaluation (PD = 2.90 ± 0.39 mm; BoP = 0.01 ± 0.01% and Sup = 0.00 ± 0.00%). Between the 12 and 24 month evaluations, there were no significant clinical changes (PD = 2.85 ± 0.45 mm; BoP = 0.01 ± 0.01% and Sup = 0.00 ± 0.00%). Mucosal recession (MR) had a significant increase between the baseline and the first 12 months (0.69 ± 0.99 mm vs. 1.96 ± 1.33 mm), but there were no significant changes between the 12th and 24th month (1.94 ± 1.48 mm). The success rate was 100% without implant fracture or loss. Conclusions: Resective surgery and implantoplasty might be a valid option in some specific peri-implantitis cases. Properly designed clinical trials are needed to confirm this possibility. Full article

Since the use of dental implants is continuously increasing, it is imperative for dental practitioners to understand the nature and treatment of peri-implant diseases. The purpose of this manuscript is to comprehensively review peri-implant diseases, their characteristics, as well as their non-surgical and surgical treatment. To that end, the current literature was searched and a narrative review was conducted. It is essential that the case definitions described in the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions are used to diagnose and classify peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. While recent epidemiologic studies on peri-implant diseases exist, there is great heterogeneity in the definition of these conditions. Several risk factors and indicators are reported in the literature, with smoking and diabetes being the most universally accepted. In peri-implant mucositis, non-surgical treatment seems to be sufficient. However, for the treatment of peri-implantitis, a surgical approach, which includes open-flap debridement, apically positioned flap and guided bone regeneration, is considered more appropriate. A great variety of adjuncts to mechanical treatment have been reported with controversial results. Finally, studies comparing results from different peri-implantitis treatments are warranted in randomized controlled clinical trials in order to provide stronger evidence-based approaches. Full article

Background/Aim: This survey-based study aims to explore the clinical management protocols of followed by Australian periodontists in relation to peri-implant diseases. Materials and Methods: A five-part online questionnaire was developed and administered through email. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis, with the univariate associations between a categorical outcome and the variables evaluated using Pearson’s Chi-squared test. Results: The survey yielded 99 responses, resulting in a response rate of 41.8%. Most participants were male and aged 35–44 years. More than a quarter of practitioners had been placing implants for 6–10 years and almost two-fifths of practitioners placed 1–10 implants per month. The estimated prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in the general Australian population was 47% and 21%, respectively. Practitioners reported using systemic antibiotics to manage peri-implant mucositis (7%) and (72%) peri-implantitis lesions, with a combination of amoxicillin and metronidazole. Most common treatment modalities were oral hygiene instructions, nonsurgical debridement and antimicrobial gel/rinse. Surgical debridement and systemic antibiotics were also often used for peri-implantitis treatment. Practitioners preferred a 3-month clinical follow-up and 6-month radiographic evaluation. Furthermore, three-quarters of practitioners rated their management as moderately effective, although upwards of nine-tenths expressed the need for further training and awareness. Conclusion: This study confirms a significant use of empirical treatment modalities due to lack of standard therapeutic protocol. However, some approaches followed by the specialists may provide a basis to formulate a therapeutic protocol for peri-implant disease management. Full article

Background: The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of lasers in the treatment of implant mucositis and peri-implantitis compared to conventional treatment (non-surgical or surgical: resective or regenerative). Methods: Sources of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar search engines were used on articles published from 1997 to 2020 in English, with selected keyword criteria applied. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected. Results: All included studies were considered of “high quality” according to the quality assessment scale. The comparative assessment of the RCTs was done twice for each RCT based on the type of treatment and according to wavelength. There is strong scientific evidence that, regarding non-surgical treatment, adjunct laser application can provide better results only in the short term (three months). Regarding the surgical approach, the method of decontamination plays a subordinate role. All wavelengths/applications presented similar results. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the adjunctive use of lasers in the treatment of peri-implant inflammation is effective for up to three months; there is no strong evidence regarding the long term benefit compared to conventional treatment. Full article