Analysis of the Subgingival Microbiota in Implant-Supported Full-Arch Rehabilitations.
ABSTRACT: 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: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:OBJECTIVES:The aim of this cross-sectional study is to determine the association between the absence of keratinized mucosa and peri-implant tissue health. METHODS AND MATERIALS:This cross-sectional study comprised 412 implants from 200 patients from faculty-based clinics. Demographic, medical, and clinical information were collected. The modified sulcus bleeding index, modified plaque index, mucosal recession, probing depth, bone level, the width of keratinized mucosa, and implant status were evaluated by three calibrated examiners. Each implant was categorized into either of two peri-implant mucosa groups: keratinized mucosa (KM) or non-keratinized mucosa (NKM). The chi-square test was performed to the association between the keratinized mucosa groups and peri-implant clinical parameters and peri-implant status. Multiple logistic regression models were analyzed to test potential associations between peri-implant clinical parameters and the presence or absence of keratinized mucosa. RESULTS:Thirty-two implants (7.8%) were categorized into the NKM group. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was 12.5% and 8.3% at the subject level and implant level, respectively. The NKM group was associated with more plaque accumulation, mucosal recession, interproximal bone level ? 3?mm, and peri-implantitis (p < 0.05). After controlling for confounding factors, the NKM group demonstrated higher plaque accumulation, mucosal recession, and interproximal bone level ? 3?mm with adjusted odds ratios of 2.98 (1.33-6.66), 3.20 (95% CI, 1.03-9.90), and 4.62 (1.70-12.58), respectively. CONCLUSION:Within the limitation of this study, the lack of keratinized mucosa around the dental implants was significantly associated with more plaque accumulation, mucosal recession, interproximal bone level ? 3?mm, and peri-implantitis.
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:Hypertension is a chronic medical condition in which blood pressure in the arteries is elevated. Given the large proportion of dental implant patients using antihypertensive medications, it is crucial to evaluate the effects of these drugs on the clinical parameters of osseointegrated implants. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the influence of antihypertensive medications on clinical peri-implant tissue parameters. METHODS:Thirty-five patients received a total of 77 anodized dental implants. Based on the history of the use of antihypertensive medications, the patients were divided into two groups: the group taking antihypertensive medications (AH group) and the group of healthy patients (H group). Implants were followed up clinically and radiologically, with a focus on the peri-implant soft tissue parameters probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, modified plaque index, and marginal peri-implant bone level stability. RESULTS:None of the implants were lost, and no technical failures occurred. The mean follow-up duration was 7?years and 1?month. A significant difference was observed in the probing pocket depth 3.8 ± 1.3?mm in the AH group and 3.0 ± 0.7?mm in the H group. In the AH and H groups, 26.5% (9/34) and 4.7% (2/43) of the patients were diagnosed with peri-implantitis at the implant level, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings suggest some correlations between antihypertensive medication use and clinical parameters in anodized peri-implant tissue.
Project description:The aim of the present study was to identify the peri-implant conditions (bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket probing depth (PPD), modified plaque index (mPI)) and marginal bone loss (MBL, marginal bone level change between follow-up and occlusal loading) around cemented and screw-retained posterior single crowns on tissue-level implants. The study was a retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years (mean 2.5 years) follow-up. Patients with either cemented or screw-retained crowns in posterior regions were included. Implant survival, technical complications, BOP, PPD, mPI, MBL, biologic complications (peri-implant mocositis and peri-implantitis) were evaluated. Mann-Whitney U test was used to test the difference between the screw-retained group (SG) and cemented group (CG). 176 patients (SG: 94, CG: 82) were included. The implant survival rates were 100% in SG and 98.8% in CG. Prosthetic screw loosening was found in 8 restorations (8.7%) at follow-up visit. Peri-implant mucositis rate was significantly higher in the SG group (42.1%) than that in the CG group (32.2%) (P = 0.04). Six patients (6.38%) in the screw-retained group and 5 patients (6.10%) in the cemented group were diagnosed with peri-implantitis, the difference did not reach statistical significance (P>0.05). No significant difference of PPD, mPI and MBL were found between two groups (P = 0.11, 0.13 and 0.08, respectively). High implant survival rates were achieved in both groups. Cemented single crowns on tissue-level implants showed comparable peri-implant conditions in comparison with two-piece screw-retained crowns. Well-designed prospective cohort or randomized controlled clinical trials with longer follow-up are needed to confirm the result.
Project description:The aim of this multicenter cross-sectional study was to determine the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to assess its association with several patient- and implant-related factors. Patients with at least one implant, who came for a recall visit to one of the four centers over a period of five months, were enrolled. Presence of peri-implantitis (defined as bleeding on probing, exudate/suppuration, bone loss > 0.2 mm/year and increased pocket depth) and several other variables (e.g., smoking habits, history of periodontitis, diabetes) were recorded. Out of 248 enrolled patients (1162 implants), 10 patients had at least one implant with peri-implantitis (4.03%); a total of 14 implants were affected (1.20%). A statistically significant association between peri-implantitis and diabetes was found (OR 8.65; CI: 1.94-38.57). Smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day (OR: 0.53; CI 0.03-9.45) and history of periodontitis (OR: 2.42; CI: 0.49-11.89) were not found to be statistically associated with peri-implantitis. Even if implant therapy is a consolidated treatment, biological complications do happen. Strict supportive therapy recalls could lead to lower rates of peri-implantitis and earlier diagnosis.
Project description:AIMS:The study's aim was to assess the clinical outcome 6 and 12?months after a nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis per se or in conjunction with a combination of local antiseptic and anti-inflammatory treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Included were 69 patients with periodontitis, with 106 implants, diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis was defined as radiographic bone loss ?3?mm, probing depth (PD)???6?mm, with bleeding on probing. Group M peri-implantitis was treated with ultrasonic debridement and soft tissue curettage. Group P had additional implant surface treatment with rotatory hand piece composed of chitosan bristle, soft tissue curettage combined with application of 0.95% hypochlorite and 1 mg minocycline HCl. RESULTS:After 6 months, both groups demonstrated significant reduction of mean plaque index, PD, and clinical attachment level (0.71?±?0.57, 0.81?±?0.55; 4.77?± 0.73?mm, 4.42?±?0.5?mm; 5.03?±?0.86?mm, 5.13?±?0.73?mm; respectively) and bleeding on probing. After 6 and 12?months, group P showed significantly better PD results compared to group M. The bleeding was significantly less in group P after 12?months (15.3%?±?6.2, 25.1%?±?8.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Adjunctive treatment with local antiseptic and anti-inflammatories during mechanical phase was positively associated with inflammation reduction and connective tissue reattachment.
Project description:Peri-implantitis is one of the most important biological complication of dental implants. It has inflammatory nature, proved association with plaque accumulation in peri-implant tissues, and can be progressive on background of several factors, like comorbidity factors and bad habits. The prophylaxis and different methods of treatment were discussed during last 30 years, and surgical and nonsurgical techniques have their foes, benefits, and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the case series of various nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis with the use of protocols based on the application of local antibiotics (doxycycline, lincomycin, and erythromycin), mechanical and chemical debridement of dental implant surface, and mini-invasive regenerative technique with injections of bovine collagen. All these three cases demonstrated good results with the maintenance of bone level and absence of clinical signs of inflammation for at least a year according to the X-ray imaging (bone defect volume) and clinic assessments (probing depth, bleeding or suppuration, mucosa color, and pain presence).
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.