Clinical Success of Periorbital Craniofacial Implants: Introduction of a Staging System and Treatment Algorithm for Peri-implant Infections.

Purpose: To compare different assessment methods for peri-implant inflammation to evaluate potential risk factors and to generate a comprehensive algorithm for clinical staging, treatment, and evaluation of success in periorbital implants. Materials and Methods: In this hospital-based cross-sectional study, 111 periorbital implants in 40 patients with orbital defects after exenteration were clinically analyzed. Skin reaction according to Holgers (SRH), probing depth (PD), and sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR), as well as patient-specific data, such as age, sex, smoking and irradiation status, cleaning agent and frequency, defect etiology, implant system, implant location, time span since implantation, and type of retention, were assessed and statistically analyzed via mixed-model calculations. Success was defined as the absence of necessary invasive or antibiotic treatment. Results: A total of 62 implants (55.9%) had been placed in male patients and 49 implants (44.1%) in female patients. There were 18 patients (52 implants, 46.8%) who had received radiotherapy. Mean inflammation levels were low. PD and SFFR were highly correlated, whereby PD increased significantly with time after implantation. SRH = 2 was correlated significantly with higher PD and SFFR values. While 80% of the implants did not require invasive or antibiotic treatment, 45% of the patients presented at least one affected implant. The data gathered allowed for the definition of a staging and treatment algorithm for peri-implantitis in periorbital implants. No patient-specific factors showed a significant impact on peri-implant inflammation. Conclusion: Periorbital implant restorations with magnetic abutments are a safe treatment option for orbital defects. PD and SRH were proven to be valuable quick assessment tools and should be complemented by SFFR, if inconclusive. The established parameters for the staging of peri-implant tissue health and clinical success can serve as a viable tool for reliable and comparable assessment in clinical and scientific settings. Further studies are necessary to assess the suggested treatment algorithm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]