The prevalence of peri-implant disease following immediate implant placement and loading: a cross-sectional analysis after 2 to 10 years.
ABSTRACT: 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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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: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:BACKGROUND:The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols. METHODS:An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables). RESULTS:Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables. CONCLUSIONS:The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.