Search

The aim of this PRISMA-compliant systematic review was to analyze the evidence pertaining to disease resolution after the treatment of peri-implant diseases with the following PICO question: What is the rate of disease resolution following nonsurgical and surgical therapy for peri-implant diseases in adult human subjects? A literature search to identify studies that fulfilled preestablished eligibility criteria was conducted. Data on primary therapeutic outcomes, including treatment success and rate of disease resolution and/or recurrence, as well as a variety of secondary outcomes were extracted and categorized. A total of 54 articles were included. Few studies investigated the efficacy of different nonsurgical and surgical therapies to treat peri-implant diseases using a set of predefined criteria and with follow-up periods of at least 1 year. The definition of treatment success and disease resolution outcomes differed considerably among the included studies. Peri-implant mucositis treatment was most commonly reported to be successful in arresting disease progression for ≤ 60% of the cases, whereas most studies on peri-implantitis treatment reported disease resolution occurring in < 50% of the implants. Disease resolution is generally unpredictable and infrequently achieved after the treatment of peri-implant diseases. A great variety of definitions have been used to define treatment success. Notably, percentages of treatment success and disease resolution were generally underreported. The use of standardized parameters to evaluate disease resolution should be considered an integral component in future clinical studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition in dental medicine that manifests as an inflammatory process affecting the tissues surrounding dental implants. Peri-implantitis occurs when the soft and hard tissues surrounding these implants become inflamed, leading to progressive destruction of the supporting bone. The etiology of peri-implantitis is multifactorial, involving microbial, host-related, and environmental factors. Microbial involvement in peri-implantitis can be explained either by direct in-situ virulence activation leading to pathogenicity, or by induction of low-grade chronic immune activation, leading to long-term persistence of a pro-inflammatory status. Understanding peri-implantitis is pivotal in maintaining the long-term success of dental implants and improving patient outcomes in implant- supported restorations. Recognizing the etiological factors, including particular bacterial species, genetic predispositions, and environmental influences, is very important for devising effective preventive strategies and targeted interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment of stages I–IV periodontitis provided evidence‐based recommendations for treating periodontitis patients, defined according to the 2018 classification. Peri‐implant diseases were also re‐defined in the 2018 classification. It is well established that both peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis are highly prevalent. In addition, peri‐implantitis is particularly challenging to manage and is accompanied by significant morbidity. Aim: To develop an S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases, focusing on the implementation of interdisciplinary approaches required to prevent the development of peri‐implant diseases or their recurrence, and to treat/rehabilitate patients with dental implants following the development of peri‐implant diseases. Materials and Methods: This S3 level CPG was developed by the European Federation of Periodontology, following methodological guidance from the Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. A rigorous and transparent process included synthesis of relevant research in 13 specifically commissioned systematic reviews, evaluation of the quality and strength of evidence, formulation of specific recommendations, and a structured consensus process involving leading experts and a broad base of stakeholders. Results: The S3 level CPG for the prevention and treatment of peri‐implant diseases culminated in the recommendation for implementation of various different interventions before, during and after implant placement/loading. Prevention of peri‐implant diseases should commence when dental implants are planned, surgically placed and prosthetically loaded. Once the implants are loaded and in function, a supportive peri‐implant care programme should be structured, including periodical assessment of peri‐implant tissue health. If peri‐implant mucositis or peri‐implantitis are detected, appropriate treatments for their management must be rendered. Conclusion: The present S3 level CPG informs clinical practice, health systems, policymakers and, indirectly, the public on the available and most effective modalities to maintain healthy peri‐implant tissues, and to manage peri‐implant diseases, according to the available evidence at the time of publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implants have evolved in terms of shape, size, and surface in order to optimize the success rate. Exploring the antioxidant levels around different surface treated dental implants is essential for improving their performance. The purpose of this study was to detect and measure the level of superoxide dismutase (SOD), an antioxidant enzyme among SLA, SLActive and TiUnite implant surfaces. Materials and methods: Subjects with healthy dental implant were categorized into Group 1: SLA (n=25), Group 2: SLActive (n=25), Group 3: TiUnite (n=25). Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) was collected and SOD was quantified using an ELISA kit. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc. Results and discussion: The SOD level was low in group 3 (204.73±1.96 pg/mL), followed by group 1 (216.32±2.40 pg/mL) and group 2 (240.67±7.09 pg/mL). Difference in SOD levels was observed on comparing the groups (p = 0.00). Also, pairwise comparison showed a statistically significant difference among groups (p = 0.00). Conclusions: Superoxide dismutase level in peri-implant crevicular fluid was low around the TiUnite dental implant, compared to SLA and SLActive implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Inflammation that occurs as part of body's response to implant-tissue contact can result in oxidative stress. Therefore, exploring the oxidative stress around different surface treated dental implants is essential to improve the performance of implants. The purpose of this study was to detect and measure the level of malondialdehyde (MDA), an oxidative stress marker in SLA, SLActive and TiUnite implant surfaces. Materials and methods: Subjects with healthy dental implant were categorized into Group 1: SLA (n=25), Group 2: SLActive (n=25), Group 3: TiUnite (n=25). Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) was collected and MDA was quantified using ELISA kit. Statistical analysis was performed using oneway ANOVA, followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc. Results and discussion: The MDA level was high in group 3 (6.49±0.29 nmol/mL), followed by group 1 (5.37±0.47 nmol/mL) and group 2 (4.37±0.22 nmol/mL). There was a significant difference in MDA levels between the three groups (p = 0.00). Also, pairwise comparison showed a statistically significant difference among groups (p = 0.00). Conclusions: Malondialdehyde level in peri-implant crevicular fluid was high around the TiUnite dental implant, compared to SLA and SLActive implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The study was aimed at comparing implants installed with guided and conventional surgery. Material and methods: Twenty-nine total edentulous patients were selected, and maxillary contralateral quadrants were randomly assigned to static computer-aided implant surgery (S-CAIS): flapless computer-guided surgery, and conventional surgery (CS): flap surgery with conventional planning. Tomography scans were performed at baseline and 10 days after the surgery for deviation measurement, and radiography was done at baseline and after 6 and 12 months, for peri-implant bone level (PIBL) analysis. Peri-implant fluid and subgingival biofilm were collected to evaluate bone markers and periodontal pathogens. Results: S-CAIS showed less linear deviation at the apical point and the midpoint and less angular deviation (p < 0.05), with greater depth discrepancy in the positioning of the platform (p < 0.05). Higher values of vertical PIBL were observed for the S-CAIS group at baseline (p < 0.05), while lower values of horizontal PIBL were observed for CS (p < 0.05). Bone markers and Tf presented higher levels in CS (p < 0.05). Flapless S-CAIS allowed smaller linear and angular deviations than the conventional technique. Conclusion: However, PIBL was higher in S-CAIS; the conventional technique led to a greater angiogenic and bone remodeling activity by elevating the angiogenic levels and bone markers. Clinical relevance: Evaluating the different implant insertion techniques can guide clinical and surgical regarding the accuracy, the release pattern of bone markers, and the peri-implant bone level. Trial registration: ReBEC-RBR-8556fzp. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To increase the success of dental implants, numerous surface alterations are performed to them. After implant-tissue contact, inflammation develops as part of the host response. To enhance the function of dental implants, it is crucial to measure the amounts of inflammatory mediators around different surface-treated implants. The purpose of this study was to compare the levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) among SLA, SLActive and TiUnite implant surfaces. Materials and methods: Subjects with healthy dental implant were categorized into Group 1: SLA (n=25), Group 2: SLActive (n=25), Group 3: TiUnite (n=25). Utilizing an ELISA kit, IL-6 was measured in the peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF). One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis, followed by Tukey's HSD post hoc. Results and discussion: Group 3 had the highest IL-6 level (4.39±0.69 pg/mL), followed by groups 1 (3.22±0.94 pg/mL) and 2 (1.37±0.28 pg/mL). The levels of IL-6 varied significantly among the three groups (p = 0.00). Additionally, a statistically significant difference between the groups was revealed by pairwise comparison (p = 0.00). Conclusions: Compared to SLA and SLActive implants, the IL-6 level in the peri-implant crevicular fluid around TiUnite dental implants was higher. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]