Search

Purpose: To assess two types of abutment materials routinely used in daily practice-direct polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and a zirconia-on-Ti-base abutment-and their effects on peri-implant soft tissues and bone remodeling in a minipig model., Materials and Methods: A total of 40 implants were placed in five minipigs in a single-stage surgery. Four different types of abutment materials (n = 10 per group) were used: (1) titanium (control); (2) zirconia (control); (3) PMMA (test 1); and (4) Ti-base (zirconia bonded to a titanium framework; test 2). After 3 months of healing, the samples were collected and subjected to nondecalcified histology. The soft tissue dimensions (sulcus, junctional epithelium, and connective tissue attachment) were assessed on each abutment mesially and distally, and the distance from the implant margin to the first bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was measured., Results: No statistically significant differences were found among the four groups regarding soft tissue dimensions (P = .21), and a long junctional epithelium (mean: 4.1 mm) and a short connective tissue attachment (mean: 0.3 mm) were found in the majority of abutments. In some samples, the junctional epithelium extended all the way to the bone level. The measured peri-implant bone remodeling was similar in all four groups (P = .25)., Conclusions: The present findings indicate that both direct PMMA and zirconia-on-Ti-base abutments seem to allow soft tissue integration similar to that of titanium and zirconia abutments. However, clinical studies are warranted to either confirm or refute the observed findings and to further investigate the influence of different materials on mucointegration.

Objectives: In patients with dental implants, what is the effect of transmucosal components made of materials other than titanium (alloys) compared to titanium (alloys) on the surrounding peri-implant tissues after at least 1 year?, Materials and Methods: This systematic review included eligible randomized controlled trials identified through an electronic search (Medline, Embase and Web of Science) comparing alternative abutment materials versus titanium (alloy) abutments with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and including at least 10 patients/group. Primary outcomes were peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) and probing depth (PD), these were evaluated based on meta-analyses. Abutment survival, biological and technical complications and aesthetic outcomes were the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the RoB2-tool. This review is registered in PROSPERO with the number (CRD42022376487)., Results: From 5129 titles, 580 abstracts were selected, and 111 full-text articles were screened. Finally, 12 articles could be included. Concerning the primary outcomes (MBL and PD), no differences could be seen between titanium abutment and zirconia or alumina abutments, not after 1 year (MBL: zirconia: MD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.16, alumina: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.17) (PD: zirconia: MD = -0.06, 95% CI: -0.41 to 0.30, alumina: MD = -0.29, 95% CI: -0.96 to 0.38), nor after 5 years. Additionally, no differences were found concerning the biological complications and aesthetic outcomes. The most important technical finding was abutment fracture in the ceramic group and chipping of the veneering material., Conclusions: Biologically, titanium and zirconia abutments seem to function equally up to 5 years after placement., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The aim of Working Group 3 was to address the influence of both material- and anti-resorptive drug- related factors on clinical and biological outcomes and complications in implant dentistry. Focused questions were addressed on (a) implant materials other than titanium (alloy)s, (b) transmucosal abutment materials and (c) medications affecting bone metabolism were addressed., Materials and Methods: Three systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion in Group 3. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations were formulated by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. Patient perspectives and recommendations for future research were also conveyed. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary., Results: Zirconia is a valid alternative to titanium as material for implant and transmucosal components, allowing soft and hard tissue integration with clinical outcomes-identified by implant survival, marginal bone loss and peri-implant probing depths-up to 5-years comparable to titatnium. However, most of the evidence for zirconia implants is based on 1-piece implants limiting the indication range. Furthermore, based on expert opinion, zirconia transmucosal components might be preferred in the esthetic zone. In patients receiving low-dose bisphosphonate therapy, the rate of early implant failure is not increased, while the long-term effects remain poorly studied. Although it has not been sufficiently addressed, similar outcomes can be expected with low-dose denosumab. A drug holiday is not recommended when considering implant placement in patients treated with low-dose ARD. However, the specific therapeutic window, the cumulative dose and the administration time should be considered. Access to peri-implant supportive care is mandatory to prevent peri-implantitis-related medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) or implant-related sequestra (IRS). In patients receiving low-dose anti-resorptive drugs (ARD) therapy, the risk of complications related to implant placement is high, and implant procedures in this specific population should be strictly treated in a comprehensive multidisciplinary center. Finally, healthy dental implants should not be removed before low or high-dose ARD., Conclusions: Zirconia implants can be an alternative to titanium implants in selected indications. However, the current state of evidence remains limited, especially for 2-piece implant designs. Administration of low-dose ARD did not show any negative impact on early implant outcomes, but careful follow-up and supportive care is recommended in order to prevent peri-implant MRONJ and IRS. Implant placement in high-dose patients must be strictly considered in a comprehensive multidisciplinary center., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Peri-implant mucosal integration is becoming a critical aspect for long term implant health and can be triggered the selection of implant components. The aim of this review is therefore to investigate the evidence concerning implant connection and abutment characteristics (abutment materials, design, handling) as predisposing or precipitating factor for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Although the evidence that these features can directly predispose/precipitate peri-implant diseases is limited, there are -few- studies showing a potential role of the implant connection, trans-mucosal configuration, and handling in the development of early bone loss and/or peri-implantitis. With bone level implants, conical internal connections (with inherent platform switching) might be preferred over internal flat-flat and external connections to decrease the risk of early bone loss and potentially the risk of peri-implant disease. Moreover, there is a trend suggesting moving the prosthetic interface coronally (to the juxta-mucosal level) as soon as possible to reduce the number of disconnections and to limit the risk of cements remnants. This can be achieved by choosing a tissue-level implant or to place a trans-mucosal abutment (one abutment-one time approach) to optimize the peri-implant soft tissue seal. In absence of evidence for the biocompatibility regarding several restorative materials, biocompatible materials such as titanium or zirconia should be preferred in the trans-mucosal portion. Finally, higher implants (≥2mm) with an emergence angle below 30° seem more favourable. It should however be noted that some of this information is solely based on indirect information (such as early bone loss) and more research is needed before making firm recommendations about abutment choice. [Correction added on 13 March 2023, after first online publication: 'longer implants (≥2mm)' was changed to 'higher implants (≥2mm)' in this version.]., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Dental implants with a triangular neck design have been developed in order to maintain peri-implant bone. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to assess after 5 years the peri-implant bone stability and the peri-implant soft tissue conditions with this new triangular implant neck design compared to a conventional round neck implant design., Material and Methods: This is a secondary evaluation of a RCT including 34 patients. Patients were recalled after 1, 3, and finally 5 years to assess implant survival and peri-implant bone levels using standardized radiographs. Peri-implant soft tissue health was also evaluated by recording probing depth, plaque index and Bleeding on Probing. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and the Pink Esthetic Score were also assessed., Results: No implant loss occurred during the 5-year follow up period. The mean ± SD proximal bone remodeling after 5 years reached 0.38 ± 0.39 mm for the circular design and 0.29 ± 0.58 mm for the triangular design (p = .49). Peri-implant soft tissue health parameters and PROMs were found to be comparable. Altogether, 80% of implants presented peri-implant mucositis whereas one implant (4%) displayed sings of peri-implantitis., Conclusion: The 5-year evaluation of the triangular neck implants showed similar results to the circular neck implants., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess, over a period of 5 years, implant prosthesis and patient-reported outcomes of complete dentures retained by four implant-supported attachments in the edentulous maxilla facing either natural teeth or fixed rehabilitation in the lower jaw., Materials and Methods: Implant, prosthodontic and patient-related outcomes were assessed in 30 patients at 1, 3 and 5 years. Prosthodontic survival, complications or maintenance events as well as implant survival were recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire and a visual analogue scale (VAS) before implant placement (baseline) and during the follow-up period., Results: After 5 years, three patients dropped out, 21 implants failed, and four overdentures were replaced leading to a prosthesis survival rate of 85.2% (95% CI: 71.8%-98.6%) and an implant survival rate of 80.6% (95% CI: 73.1%-88.0%). Prosthodontic success rate decreased from 86.2% to 74% between the 1st and the 3rd year and reached 63% after 5 years. OHIP results improved significantly from baseline to 1 year (p < .0001) and to 3 years (p = .036), but, at 5 years, the improvement was no longer significant when compared to baseline (p = .12). The overall VAS score remained significantly higher up to 5 years (p < .001)., Conclusion: A substantial number of prosthetic complications and replacements occurred over the 5-year follow-up. After 5 years, the OHIP-20 deteriorated and reached again the baseline level. Nonetheless, the VAS results suggest significantly increased patient satisfaction after implant-supported retention was provided for the removable prostheses., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: To evaluate, in a minipig model, the soft tissue integration of four different transmucosal materials, as well as the peri-implant bone remodeling., Materials and Methods: A total of 40 implants were placed in five minipigs in a single stage surgery, and two of each of the following abutment materials were used in each animal: (1) titanium (Ti; control), (2) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), (3) zirconia (Zi), and (4) veneering ceramic (VC). After a healing period of 3 months, the samples were collected and subjected to nondecalcified histology. The soft tissue dimensions (sulcus, junctional epithelium, and connective tissue attachment) were assessed on each abutment and the distance from the implant margin to first bone-to-implant contact (BIC) was measured., Results: The mean biological width-characterized by the sum of junctional epithelium and connective tissue measurements-was 3.8 (0.6) mm and no statistically significant difference was found between the four groups (p = 0.41). However, a long junctional epithelium (3.3-3.8 mm) and a very short connective tissue attachment (0.1-0.2 mm) were observed with all abutments. The measured peri-implant bone remodeling was similar in all four groups (p = 0.88)., Conclusions: Within its limitations, this study showed that all tested materials allowed soft tissue integration, consisting of a long junctional epithelium, extending close to the bone level, and a rather short portion of connective tissue., (© 2022 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)

Objectives: The aim of this prospective case series was to assess the implant outcomes as well as hard and soft tissue dimensional changes of immediate implant placement in posterior sites using a custom-made sealing socket abutment (SSA) combined to peri-implant socket filling (PISF)., Material and Methods: Twenty patients were considered for single extraction and immediate implant in upper or lower posterior regions. The remaining peri-implant sockets were filled with Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral. Based on intra-oral scans (IOS), custom-made SSAs were placed the same day. Implant survival rate, peri-implant bone changes, peri-implant health and pink esthetic score (PES) were recorded up to 1 year post-implant placement. Moreover, CBCT and IOS were performed to monitor hard and soft tissue dimensional changes., Results: One implant failed to osseointegrate leading to an implant survival rate of 95% after 1 year. Peri-implant bone changes yielded 0.19 ± 0.31 mm and 84.2% of the implants displayed no or mild bleeding on probing. Horizontal bone remodeling was not significant from baseline to 1 year at any levels. Finally, soft tissue profile was stable in the most cervical area while minor changes occurred during the first 6 months below the gingival margin. The absence of mid-buccal recession (0.07 mm) and good PES were found after 1 year., Conclusion: Despite its limitations, this study showed that immediate implants in the posterior region using the SSA + PISF protocol resulted in promising implant outcomes with limited hard and soft tissue dimensional changes while decreasing the overall treatment time., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S . Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of two sinus floor elevation techniques: the conventional lateral window technique versus the transalveolar approach using a hydrodynamic ultrasonic device., Materials and Methods: The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial, and participants were randomly allocated to the control group (lateral window: LW) or to the test group (hydrodynamic transalveolar approach: HTA). The intraoperative and postoperative data, including procedure duration and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), were collected during the surgery and up to 1 year post-surgery. Additionally, qualitative assessment of gained bone volumes and implant survival rates was recorded., Results: Twenty-two patients were included in the study. The mean surgical time was significantly longer in the HTA compared to the LW group (48.1 ± 11.2 min vs. 35.2 ± 9.1 min, P = 0.0011). Perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occurred in 2/11 and 5/11 patients in the LW and the HTA group, respectively (P = 0.36). Postoperatively, higher morbidity and consumption of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were associated with the LW group. However, self-reported satisfaction with surgical procedures was similar in the two groups. At 1 year, implant survival rates of 80% in the HTA group and 100% in the LW group were recorded (P = 0.12)., Conclusions: Although the new transalveolar approach seems to reduce postoperative morbidity, an increased risk of intraoperative complications compared to the LW approach needs to be considered when choosing a technique., Clinical Relevance: Our results provide new insights regarding clinical and radiographic outcomes of HTA and may help further determine indications for its use., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrivals.gov : NCT04499625., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH, DE part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Customized sealing socket abutment (SSA) has been claimed to optimize the peri-implant hard and soft tissues in type 1 implant placement. However, the evidence to claim the benefits of this technique over the use a conventional healing abutment remains weak., Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to provide a 3D-radiographic evaluation of hard tissues changes following immediate implant placement in molar sites combined to ARP technique and installation of SSA., Materials and Methods: Baseline and follow-up (FU) CBCTs (from 1 to 5 years) of 26 patients were collected and included in the study. Baseline and FU CBCTs were superimposed and horizontal and vertical bone changes were assessed., Results: A total of 26 patients and 27 implants were included. Horizontal bone remodeling was not significant in any of the measured areas except in the most cervical level, where a mean bone remodeling of 0.73 mm was found. Proximal and buccal vertical bone changes were not significant., Conclusions: Within the limits of a retrospective study, dimensional alveolar ridge changes 1 to 5 years after immediate implant placement in molar sites with simultaneous ARP technique and installation of SSA seem to be very limited., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: Implants with a triangular neck were recently introduced to limit peri-implant bone loss. The primary objective of this randomized controlled trial was to compare peri-implant bone changes of circular versus triangular cross-section neck implants 1 year after loading. The secondary objectives were to assess buccal hard tissue thickness changes, Pink Esthetic Score (PES), and patient satisfaction., Material and Methods: Thirty four patients requiring replacement of the single, intercalated missing tooth of healed site for at least 4 months in the posterior maxilla were randomized into 2 groups according to the type of implant. Immediately after surgery and 1 year after final restoration, a cone beam CT (CBCT) was performed to assess proximal bone remodeling and buccal bone thickness. Peri-implant soft tissue health, PES, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were recorded., Results: No implant loss occurred within the follow-up period. The mean ± SD peri-implant proximal bone loss 1 year after loading was 0.22 ± 0.30 mm for triangular and 0.42 ± 0.67 mm for circular implants necks (p = .25). Peri-implant bone loss exceeding 2 mm was observed in a single implant in the circular neck group. Buccal bone thickness remained stable and did not differ different between the 2 groups. The peri-implant soft tissue health, PES, and patient satisfaction were also comparable., Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, patient clinical and radiographic outcomes did not differ between triangular and circular cross-section neck implants in the posterior maxilla., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the implant, prosthesis, and patient-reported outcomes of maxillary removable prostheses retained by 4 implant-supported study abutments after a follow-up period of 1 year in patients with natural teeth or a fixed rehabilitation in the mandible., Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients were included, and all received 4 implants in the upper maxilla. After 12 weeks, the prostheses were connected to the implant with unsplinted attachments. The implant and prosthodontics outcomes were assessed over a follow-up period of 1 year. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire and an adaptation of the McGill Denture Satisfaction Instrument using a visual analogue scale (VAS)., Results: A single patient dropped out. At the post-operative 12-week follow-up, 79.3% (95% CI: 64.6%-94.1%) of the patients displayed peri-implant mucosa hyperplasia and 69.0% (95% CI: 52.1%-85.8%) showed pain. After 1 year, 16 implants failed in 10 patients, leading to an implant survival rate of 86.2% (95% CI: 79.0%-92.5%), and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.01 ± 0.77 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.16 mm). The prosthesis survival rate was 96.6% (95% CI: 82.2%-99.9%). The OHIP-20 and VAS scores both improved significantly from baseline to 1 year (p < .001)., Conclusion: The implant survival rate was lower compared to the literature for the upper maxilla. Despite the encountered problems, PROMs showed significant improvement with the implant overdenture retained by 4 unsplinted implants compared to conventional dentures., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2-year outcomes of the one-tooth onetime complete digital workflow, allowing the immediate loading of a single implant in the posterior region with a final CAD/CAM crown made of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic network. Materials and methods: A series of 10 implants were placed, and an intraoral scan was taken after surgery. A final screw-retained polymer-infiltrated ceramic network crown was manufactured chairside and placed the same day in full occlusion. Marginal peri-implant bone changes and soft tissue health were evaluated, and restoration performance was assessed using FDI World Dental Federation criteria and pink and white aesthetic scores. Patient-reported outcome measures and data on the time required to perform the procedures were collected. Results: After 2 years, the implant survival rate was 100%. The debonding of one crown from its titanium base led to prosthodontic survival rate of 90% and the remaining crowns were all considered successful. The mean marginal peri-implant bone changes yielded 0.87 mm (standard deviation 0.96 mm) and 0.55 mm (standard deviation 0.53 mm) after 1 and 2 years, respectively. Mild or no inflammation of peri-implant soft tissue was observed in most implants. The total treatment time was 175 minutes and patient-reported outcome measures displayed high patient satisfaction. Conclusions: This study constitutes the first report examining immediate loading of a single implant in the posterior region with a final crown in occlusion. In this case series, the 2-year outcomes of the one-tooth one-time protocol seem rather promising and fulfilled patient expectations. However, these preliminary results need to be confirmed by randomised controlled trials, and patient selection is likely to be a key factor in the success of this procedure., Competing Interests: Amélie Mainjot cohabits with the founder of the company MaJEB, which contributes to the development of polymer-infiltrated ceramic network materials. Prof Lambert has collaboration agreement.

Objectives: The aim of Working Group 4 was to address topics related to biologic risks and complications associated with implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) diagnosis of peri-implantitis, (b) complications associated with implants in augmented sites, (c) outcomes following treatment of peri-implantitis, and (d) implant therapy in geriatric patients and/or patients with systemic diseases were addressed., Materials and Methods: Four systematic reviews formed the basis for discussion in Group 4. Participants developed statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary., Results: Bleeding on probing (BOP) alone is insufficient for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis. The positive predictive value of BOP alone for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis varies and is dependent on the prevalence of peri-implantitis within the population. For patients with implants in augmented sites, the prevalence of peri-implantitis and implant loss is low over the medium to long term. Peri-implantitis treatment protocols which include individualized supportive care result in high survival of implants after 5 years with about three-quarters of implants still present. Advanced age alone is not a contraindication for implant therapy. Implant placement in patients with cancer receiving high-dose antiresorptive therapy is contraindicated due to the associated high risk for complications., Conclusions: Diagnosis of peri-implantitis requires the presence of BOP as well as progressive bone loss. Prevalence of peri-implantitis for implants in augmented sites is low. Peri-implantitis treatment should be followed by individualized supportive care. Implant therapy for geriatric patients is not contraindicated; however, comorbidities and autonomy should be considered., (© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis., (© 2018 American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology.)

Aims: Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis., Methods: Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants., Results: Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation., Conclusions: Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Osteoporosis affects millions of elderly patients, and anti-resorptive drugs (ARD) such as bisphosphonates (BP) represent the first-line therapy. Despite the benefits related to the use of these medications, osteonecrosis of the jaw is a significant complication in a subset of patients receiving these drugs., Case Presentation: This report documents a case of dramatic bisphosphonate-related osteonecrosis associated with periodontitis and dental implant removal in an osteoporotic patient treated with per os bisphosphonates for an uninterrupted period of 15 years., Conclusion: The aim of this report was to discuss the administration period of BP in the treatment of osteoporosis, the decision-making and clinical management of severe MRONJ and the indications for dental implant placement in these specific patients., (© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)