The Influence of Smoking on the Peri-Implant Microbiome.
ABSTRACT: Smokers are at high risk for 2 bacterially driven oral diseases: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to use a deep-sequencing approach to identify the effect of smoking on the peri-implant microbiome in states of health and disease. Peri-implant biofilm samples were collected from 80 partially edentulous subjects with peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Bacterial DNA was isolated and 16S ribsomal RNA gene libraries sequenced using 454-pyrosequencing targeting the V1 to V3 and V7 to V9 regions. In total, 790,692 classifiable sequences were compared against the HOMD database for bacterial identification. Community-level comparisons were carried out using UniFrac and nonparametric tests. Microbial signatures of health in smokers exhibited lower diversity compared to nonsmokers, with significant enrichment for disease-associated species. Shifts from health to mucositis were accompanied by loss of several health-associated species, leading to a further decrease in diversity. Peri-implantitis did not differ significantly from mucositis in species richness or evenness. In nonsmokers, by contrast, the shift from health to mucositis resembled primary ecological succession, with acquisition of several species without replacement of pioneer organisms, thereby creating a significant increase in diversity. Again, few differences were detected between peri-implantitis and mucositis. Thus, our data suggest that smoking shapes the peri-implant microbiomes even in states of clinical health, by supporting a pathogen-rich community. In both smokers and nonsmokers, peri-implant mucositis appears to be a pivotal event in disease progression, creating high-at-risk-for-harm communities. However, ecological succession follows distinctly divergent pathways in smokers and nonsmokers, indicating a need for personalized therapeutics for control and prevention of disease in these 2 cohorts.
Project description:Dental implants are commonly used to replace missing teeth. However, the dysbiotic polymicrobial communities of peri-implant sites are responsible for peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. In this study, we analyzed the microbial characteristics of oral plaque from peri-implant pockets or sulci of healthy implants (n = 10), peri-implant mucositis (n = 8) and peri-implantitis (n = 6) sites using pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. An increase in microbial diversity was observed in subgingival sites of ailing implants, compared with healthy implants. Microbial co-occurrence analysis revealed that periodontal pathogens, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, and Prevotella intermedia, were clustered into modules in the peri-implant mucositis network. Putative pathogens associated with peri-implantitis were present at a moderate relative abundance in peri-implant mucositis, suggesting that peri-implant mucositis an important early transitional phase during the development of peri-implantitis. Furthermore, the relative abundance of Eubacterium was increased at peri-implantitis locations, and co-occurrence analysis revealed that Eubacterium minutum was correlated with Prevotella intermedia in peri-implantitis sites, which suggests the association of Eubacterium with peri-implantitis. This study indicates that periodontal pathogens may play important roles in the shifting of healthy implant status to peri-implant disease.
Project description:Dental implants are installed in an increasing number of patients. Mucositis and peri-implantitis are common microbial-biofilm-associated diseases affecting the tissues that surround the dental implant and are a major medical and socioeconomic burden. By metagenomic sequencing of the plaque microbiome in different peri-implant health and disease conditions (113 samples from 72 individuals), we found microbial signatures for peri-implantitis and mucositis and defined the peri-implantitis-related complex (PiRC) composed by the 7 most discriminative bacteria. The peri-implantitis microbiome is site specific as contralateral healthy sites resembled more the microbiome of healthy implants, while mucositis was specifically enriched for Fusobacterium nucleatum acting as a keystone colonizer. Microbiome-based machine learning showed high diagnostic and prognostic power for peri-implant diseases and strain-level profiling identified a previously uncharacterized subspecies of F. nucleatum to be particularly associated with disease. Altogether, we associated the plaque microbiome with peri-implant diseases and identified microbial signatures of disease severity.
Project description:BACKGROUND:To evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant disease after immediate implant placement and loading. MATERIAL AND METHODS:This cross-sectional analysis included a total of 47 patients with 64 implants exhibiting a mean loading time of 2 to 10?years (4.23?±?1.7?years). The surgical and prosthetic procedures were standardized in all patients. Peri-implant health and disease was assessed based on the established case definitions. RESULTS:The prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis amounted to 38.3%, 57.5%, and 4.2% of the patients, respectively. Mucosal recession of 1?mm was present at 4 (6%) implants. No suppuration, pain, or implant failures were reported. Ordinal logistic regression revealed that reduced keratinized mucosa height was significantly associated with the diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (OR?=?0.514, P?=?0.0125). CONCLUSION:Immediate implant placement and loading was associated with high success rates at 2 to 10?years.
Project description:The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the incidence and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients with a fixed full-arch prosthesis supported by two axial and two tilted implants.Sixty-nine patients were included in the study. Each patient received a fixed full-arch prosthesis supported by two mesial axial and two distal tilted implants to rehabilitate the upper arch, the lower arch, or both. Three hundred thirty-six implants for 84 restorations were delivered. Patients were scheduled for follow-up visits every 6 months in the first 2 years and yearly after. At each follow-up visit peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were diagnosed if present.The overall follow-up range was from 12 to 130 months (mean 63,2 months). Three patients presented peri-implantitis. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis ranged between 0 and 7,14% of patients (5,06% of implants) while the prevalence of peri-implantitis varied from 0 to 4,55% of patients (3,81% of implants).The prevalence and incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are lower than most of the studies in literature. Therefore this kind of rehabilitation could be considered a feasible option, on the condition of adopting a systematic hygienic protocol.
Project description:AIM:The aim of this case-series study is to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis, peri-implantitis, and survival and success rates of oxide-coated implants in subjects treated for periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty-four subjects treated for generalized chronic periodontitis (GCP) and five treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP) were orally rehabilitated with a total of 130 dental implants. Subjects were examined 2 to 4 weeks prior to extraction of non-retainable teeth and at insertion of superstructure. Additional examinations were performed during a 3-month recall schedule over a 3- to 6-year follow-up period. Radiographs were taken after insertion of the superstructure and 1, 3, and 5 years later. RESULTS:The results showed implant survival rates of 97.1% in GCP subjects versus 96.2% in GAP subjects. The implant success rate was 77.9% in GCP subjects and 38.5% in GAP subjects. In GCP subjects, mucositis was present in 7.7% and peri-implantitis in 12.5% of the implants. In GAP subjects, 28.0% of the implants showed mucositis and 32.0% peri-implantitis. Implant failure, mucositis, and peri-implantitis were more evident in GAP subjects. Peri-implantitis was more prevalent for implants in the maxilla and implants?>10 mm. After 5 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss in GAP subjects was 2.89 mm and in GCP subjects 1.38 mm. CONCLUSIONS:Periodontally diseased subjects treated in a supportive periodontal therapy can be successfully rehabilitated with oxide-coated dental implants for a follow-up period of 3- to 6-years. Implants in the maxilla and GAP subjects were more susceptible to mucositis and peri-implantitis, with lower implant survival and success rates.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Due to the risk of peri-implantitis, following dental implant placement, this study aimed to evaluate risk indicators associated with marginal bone loss from a retrospective open cohort study of 4,591 dental implants, placed in private practice, with 5- to 10-year follow-up. Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis among the study cohort was evaluated, comparing strict versus relaxed criteria for bleeding on probing. METHODS:Periapical radiographs were used to evaluate changes in crestal bone level. Peri-implant soft tissue was evaluated using an ordinal mucosal index in comparison with the conventional binary threshold for bleeding (i.e., present or not). Periodontal probing depth was not evaluated. Linear mixed models were used to evaluate bone level over time, and other risk indicators, at the patient and implant level. RESULTS:Risk indicators found to have a significant impact on bone level included: autoimmune disease, heavy smoking, bisphosphonate therapy, implant location, diameter and design, and the presence of a bone defect at site of implantation. The prevalence of mucositis at the implant level was 38.6% versus 14.2% at 6 to 7 years, when using strict versus relaxed criteria, respectively. The prevalence of peri-implantitis after 6 to 7 years was 4.7% and 3.6% when using strict versus relaxed criteria, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study identify several risk factors associated with bone loss. Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be lower at both the implant and the patient when using strict versus relaxed criteria based on the assessment of oral health surrounding dental implants.
Project description:In spite of all the developments in dental implantology techniques, peri-implant diseases are frequent (prevalence up to 80% and 56% of subjects for mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively) and there is an urgency for an effective treatment strategy. This paper presents an innovative electromedical device for the electromagnetic treatment of mucositis and peri-implantitis diseases. This device is also equipped with a measurement part for bioimpedance, which reflects the health conditions of a tissue, thus allowing clinicians to objectively detect impaired areas and to monitor the severity of the disease, evaluate the treatment efficacy, and adjust it accordingly. The design of the device was realized considering literature data, clinical evidence, numerical simulation results, and electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) pre-compliance tests, involving both clinicians and engineers, to better understand all the needs and translate them into design requirements. The reported system is being tested in more than 50 dental offices since 2019, providing efficient treatments for mucositis and peri-implantitis, with success rates of approximately 98% and 80%, respectively.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Dental implants have become well-established in oral rehabilitation for fully or partially edentulous patients. However, peri-implantitis often leads to the failure of dental implants. The aim of this study was to understand the core microbiome associated with peri-implantitis and evaluate potential peri-implantitis pathogens based on canine peri-implantitis model. RESULTS:In this study, three beagle dogs were used to build peri-implantitis models with ligature-induced strategy. The peri-implant sulcular fluids were collected at four different phases based on disease severity during the peri-implantitis development. Microbial compositions during peri-implantitis development were monitored and evaluated. The microbes were presented with operational taxonomic unit (OTU) classified at 97% identity of the high-throughput 16S rRNA gene fragments. Microbial diversity and richness varied during peri-implantitis. At the phylum-level, Firmicutes decreased and Bacteroides increased during peri-implantitis development. At the genus-level, Peptostreptococcus decreased and Porphyromonas increased, suggesting peri-implantitis pathogens might be assigned to these two genera. Further species-level and co-occurrence network analyses identified several potential keystone species during peri-implantitis development, and some OTUs were potential peri-implantitis pathogens. CONCLUSION:In summary, canine peri-implantitis models help to identify several potential keystone peri-implantitis associated species. The canine model can give insight into human peri-implantitis associated microbiota.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The etiology of peri-implantitis is multifactorial, and it is not directly linked to the quantitative amount of plaque. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of subgingival microbiota around implants supporting full-arch restorations on clinical indexes of peri-implant health. METHOD:47 patients (54 full-arch fixed rehabilitations) were included. Based on the highest value of probing depth (PD), 47 implants (in the test arch), 40 natural teeth and 7 implants (in the antagonist arch) were selected for microbiological sampling (traditional PCR and real-time PCR). Periodontal indexes (plaque index, PlI; probing depth, PD; bleeding on probing, BOP; peri-implant suppuration, PS) and marginal bone loss were also recorded. RESULTS:Despite abundant plaque accumulation, the peri-implant parameters were within normal limits. No statistical difference was found in the microbial population around the test implants and antagonist natural teeth. Treponema denticola was present in a significantly higher amount around implants with increased PlI. Implants with increased BOP showed a significant increase in Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia. A significantly higher presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola and Tannerella forsythia was identified around the implants affected by peri-implantitis and in smokers. CONCLUSIONS:Peri-implantitis is characterized by a complex and polymicrobial disease, that might be influenced by the qualitative profile of plaque. Smoking might also favor implant biological complications in full-arch fixed prosthesis.
Project description:BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to compare the survival and peri-implant bone loss of implants with a fluoride-modified surface in smokers and non-smokers. MATERIAL AND METHODS:All patients referred for implant treatment between November 2004 and 2007 were scrutinized. All implants were placed by the same surgeon (B.C.). The single inclusion criterion was a follow-up time of at least 10 years. Implant survival, health, and bone loss were evaluated by an external calibrated examiner (S.W.) during recall visits. Radiographs taken at recall visits were compared with the post-surgical ones. Implant success was based on two arbitrarily chosen success criteria for bone loss (?1 mm and ?2 mm bone loss after 10 years). Implant survival in smokers and non-smokers was compared using the log-rank test. Both non-parametric tests and fixed model analysis were used to assess bone loss in both groups. RESULTS:A total of 453 implants in 121 patients were included for survival analysis, and 397 implants in 121 patients were included for peri-implant bone-loss analysis. After a mean follow-up time of 11.38 years (SD 0.78; range 10.00-13.65), 33 implants out of 453 initially placed had failed in 21 patients, giving an overall survival rate of 92.7% and 82.6% on the implant and patient level, respectively. Cumulative 10 years' survival rate was 81% on the patient level and 91% on the implant level. The hazard of implant loss in the maxilla was 5.64 times higher in smokers compared to non-smokers (p = 0.003). The hazard of implant loss for implants of non-smokers was 2.92 times higher in the mandible compared to the maxilla (p = 0.01). The overall mean bone loss was 0.97 mm (SD 1.79, range 0-17) at the implant level and 0.90 mm (SD 1.39, range 0-7.85) at the patient level. Smokers lost significantly more bone compared to non-smokers in the maxilla (p = 0.024) but not in the mandible. Only the maxilla showed a significant difference in the probability of implant success between smokers and non-smokers (?1 mm criterion p = 0.003, ?2 mm criterion p = 0.007). Taking jaw into account, implants in smokers experienced a 2.6 higher risk of developing peri-implantitis compared to non-smokers (p = 0.053). CONCLUSION:Dental implants with a fluoride-modified surface provided a high 10 years' survival with limited bone loss. Smokers were, however, more prone to peri-implant bone loss and experienced a higher rate of implant failure, especially in the upper jaw. The overall bone loss over time was significantly higher in smoking patients, which might be suggestive for a higher peri-implantitis risk. Hence, smoking cessation should be advised and maintained after implant placement from the perspective of peri-implant disease prevention.