The Frequency of Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Background: The peri‐implant diseases, namely peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis, have been extensively studied. However, little is known about the true magnitude of the problem, owing mainly to the lack of consistent and definite diagnostic criteria used to describe the condition. The objective of the present review is to systematically estimate the overall frequency of peri‐implant diseases in general and high‐risk patients. Methods: The systematic review is prepared according to the Meta‐analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Studies were searched in four electronic databases, complemented by manual searching. The quality of the studies was assessed according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and the data were analyzed using statistical software. Results: Of 504 studies identified, nine studies with 1,497 participants and 6,283 implants were included. The summary estimates for the frequency of peri‐implant mucositis were 63.4% of participants and 30.7% of implants, and those of peri‐implantitis were 18.8% of participants and 9.6% of implants. A higher frequency of occurrence of peri‐implant diseases was recorded for smokers, with a summary estimate of 36.3%. Supportive periodontal therapy seemed to reduce the rate of occurrence of peri‐implant diseases. Conclusions: Peri‐implant diseases are not uncommon following implant therapy. Long‐term maintenance care for high‐risk groups is essential to reduce the risk of peri‐implantitis. Informed consent for patients receiving implant treatment must include the need for such maintenance therapy.     

Microbial Characteristics of Peri‐Implantitis: A Case‐Control Study

Background: The aim of this case‐control study is to compare oral microbiologic characteristics of patients with healthy peri‐implant conditions and patients with peri‐implantitis and to explore the influence of various patient‐ and implant‐related factors on microbiologic characteristics. Methods: Peri‐implant submucosal microbial samples were collected from 85 patients with peri‐implantitis (cases) and from 69 patients with only implants with healthy peri‐implant conditions (controls). Samples were analyzed using culturing techniques. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore the association of disease status and various patient‐ and implant‐related factors (sex, patient age, smoking, number of remaining teeth, percentage of teeth with bone loss, implant function time, implant surface, and presence of plaque) with microbiologic characteristics. Results: Peri‐implant disease status was significantly associated with the submucosal presence of Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythia (Tf), and Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn). The association with disease status was most obvious for Pi (odds ratio [OR]: 15.1; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.1 to 45.3) and Tf (OR: 13.3; 95% CI: 5.4 to 32.5). The prevalence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Staphylococcus species was very low. Conclusions: The periodontal pathogens Pg, Pi, Tf, and Fn are associated with peri‐implantitis. A. actinomycetemcomitans and Staphylococcus species do not seem to play an important role in peri‐implantitis.     

Treatment Outcome in Patients With Peri‐Implantitis in a Periodontal Clinic: A Retrospective Study

Background: The number of placed implants has grown during the past decade, and the prevalence of peri‐implantitis has increased. The purpose of the present study is to investigate the treatment outcome of peri‐implantitis and to identify factors influencing the treatment success rate. Methods: The study was conducted as a retrospective longitudinal study on a referral population. The material included 382 implants with peri‐implantitis in 150 patients. Peri‐implantitis was defined as presence of pocket depths ≥5 mm, bleeding at probing and/or suppuration, and the presence of implant radiographic bone loss ≥3 mm or bone loss comprising at least three threads of the implant. Variance analyses, χ² analyses, and logistic regression analysis were used for data analyses. Results: The mean age of the participants at baseline was found to be 64 years (range: 22 to 87 years). The mean ± SD follow‐up time was 26 ± 20 months, and the mean time between implant installation and baseline was 6.4 years (range: 1 to 20 years). Periodontal flap surgery with osteoplasty was the most common type of therapy (47%), and regenerative surgery procedures with bone substitute materials were chosen in 20% of the cases. The mean success rate at patient level was 69%. The results of the logistic regression analyses showed that the success rate was significantly lower for individuals with the diagnosis of severe periodontitis, severe marginal bone loss around the implants, poor oral hygiene, and low compliance. Conclusion: The effectiveness of the peri‐implantitis therapy was impaired by severe periodontitis, severe marginal bone loss around the implants, poor oral hygiene, and low compliance.     

Efficacy of 0.12% Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Non‐Surgical Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis

Background: Because peri‐implant mucositis may progress to peri‐implantitis, effective treatment resulting in resolution of inflammation could prevent peri‐implantitis. Current treatment protocols for this condition are still unpredictable. The purpose of this study is to analyze efficacy of non‐surgical treatment for patients with peri‐implant mucositis during a 6‐month follow‐up period. Methods: This controlled, randomized, double‐masked clinical trial included 37 patients diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis, randomly assigned into test group (basic periodontal therapy + 0.12% chlorhexidine) with 61 implants; and control group (basic periodontal therapy + placebo) with 58 implants. Therapy consisted of adaptation of the full‐mouth scaling and root planing protocol. Clinical parameters of visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured in implants and were evaluated at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months post‐therapy. Data were analyzed using the split‐plot analysis of variance and χ² tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Intragroup analysis showed that VPI, GBI, PD, and BOP presented statistically significant improvements compared with baseline. No statistically significant differences were found between the test and control groups at any time. Conclusions: Both isolated mechanical therapy and its association with 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthwash reduced peri‐implant mucositis. Therefore, 0.12% of chlorhexidine was not more effective than placebo.     

Long‐Term Evaluation of Periodontal Parameters and Implant Outcomes in Periodontally Compromised Patients: A Systematic Review

Background : The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the long‐term outcomes of patients with periodontitis submitted to periodontal therapy/maintenance and implant placement. Methods: Studies reporting clinical and/or long‐term implant outcomes from partially edentulous patients with periodontitis who were treated and followed periodontal maintenance for ≥5 years were considered eligible for the review. Screening of the articles, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. Results: Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases resulted in 959 papers, and of them 931 were excluded after title/abstract assessment. The full texts of 28 potentially eligible publications were screened, but only 10 studies met inclusion criteria. Most of the included studies (77.8%) presented a medium/high methodologic quality. The results demonstrated that patients with a diagnosis of periodontitis had satisfactory implant outcomes. Implant survival was high (92.1%) within studies reporting 10 years of follow‐up. Parameters related to probing depth, clinical attachment level, and bone loss around teeth increased the occurrence of peri‐implantitis and implant loss. Non‐attendance to periodontal maintenance and smoking habits were also associated with less favorable implant outcomes. Conclusions: This systematic review confirmed that implant therapy can be successfully used in patients with a diagnosis of periodontitis who underwent proper therapy and regular periodontal maintenance. Residual pockets, non‐attendance to the periodontal maintenance program, and smoking were considered to be negative factors for the long‐term implant outcomes.     

Initial and long‐term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants

Successful osseointegration is the result of a controlled foreign body reaction to dental implants. Osseointegrated implants have demonstrated excellent long‐term survivability, although they may be subject to limited marginal bone loss. Marginal bone loss during the first few years after implant placement seldom represents disease, but is instead the result of an adaptive bone response to surgical trauma and implant loading. It is not uncommon for implants with early marginal bone loss to enter a long‐lasting state of bone stability. Extensive bone resorption after the first year is generally due to an exacerbation of adverse body reactions caused by non‐optimal implant components, adverse surgery or prosthodontics and/or compromised patient factors. Disease in the form of peri‐implantitis is a late complication that affects some implants with suppuration and rapid loss of crestal bone, and is probably caused by bacterial pathogens and immunological reactions. Unfortunately, the literature is not consistent with respect to the type or magnitude of clinical implant problems, including how they are defined and diagnosed. If the peri‐implantitis diagnosis is confined to cases with infection, suppuration and significant bone loss, the frequency of the disease is relatively low, which is in sharp contrast to the frequencies reported with unrealistic definitions of peri‐implantitis. We suggest that when modern implants are placed by properly trained individuals, only 1–2% of implants show true peri‐implantitis during follow‐up periods of 10 years or more. Peri‐implantitis must be separated from the initial and self‐limiting marginal bone loss.     

Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long‐term results of dental implants using implant survival and implant success as outcome variables. Methods: Of the 76 patients who received 162 implants of the Straumann Dental Implant System during the years 1990–1997, 55 patients with 131 implants were recalled 10–16 years after implant placement for a complete clinical and radiographic examination, followed by a questionnaire that examined the degree of satisfaction. The incidence of biological and technical complications has been carefully analysed for each implant. Success was defined as being free of all these complications over the entire observation period. Associated factors related to peri‐implant lesions were analysed for each implant. Results: The long‐term implant cumulative survival rate up to 16 years was 82.94%. The prevalence of biological complications was 16.94% and the prevalence of technical complications was 31.09%. The cumulative complication rate after an observation period of 10–16 years was 48.03%, which meant that substantial amounts of chair time were necessary following implant placement. The majority of implant losses and biological complications were concentrated in a relatively small number of patients. Conclusion: Despite a relatively high long‐term survival rate, biological and technical complications were frequent. Patients with a history of periodontitis may have lower implant survival rates than patients without a history of periodontitis and were more prone to biological complications such as peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis. To cite this article :
Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 772–777
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01912.x     

Occurrence of peri‐implant diseases and risk indicators at the patient and implant levels: A multilevel cross‐sectional study

Background : High prevalence rates of peri‐implant diseases have been reported; however, the lack of standardization of definition criteria has lead to variations in the observed estimates. In addition, scarce data are available concerning patient and implant related factors associated to peri‐implantitis. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases and their risk indicators at the patient and implant levels. Methods : One hundred forty‐seven patients with 490 dental implants were included. Dental implants were clinically and radiographically evaluated to determine their peri‐implant conditions. Patient‐related conditions and implant and prosthetic‐related factors were recorded. Multivariable Poisson regression was fitted and prevalence ratios (PR) were reported. Results : 85.3% of implants (95%CI 80.2 to 90.4) had mucositis and 9.2% (95%CI 4.7 to 13.7) had peri‐implantitis. 80.9% (95%CI 73.8 to 86.8), and 19.1% (95%CI 12.6 to 25.5) of patients had mucositis and peri‐implantitis. At the patient level, it was observed an increased probability of peri‐implantitis in individuals with pocket depths ≥6 mm (PR = 2.47) and with ≥4 implants (PR = 1.96). Smoking increased the probability of peri‐implantitis by three times (PR = 3.49). The final multilevel Poisson regression model at the implant level indicated that platform switching reduced the probability of peri‐implantitis (PR = 0.18) and implants in function for ≥5 years increased this probability (PR = 2.11). The final model including patient and implant level indicators demonstrated that higher time of function (PR = 2.76) and smoking (PR = 6.59) were associated with peri‐implantitis. C onclusion : Peri‐implant diseases are highly prevalent in the studied sample, and factors associated with the occurrence of peri‐implantitis were presence of pockets ≥6 mm, smoking, time of function, and type of platform.     

Periodontal and peri‐implant diseases: identical or fraternal infections?

Peri‐implant diseases (peri‐implantitis and peri‐implant mucositis) are bacterially driven infections. Peri‐implantitis leads to aggressive bone resorption and eventual loss of the implant. Traditionally, peri‐implantitis was regarded as microbially similar to periodontitis, and translocation of periodontal pathogens into the peri‐implant crevice was considered as a critical factor in disease causation. However, evidence is emerging to suggest that the peri‐implant and periodontal ecosystems differ in many important ways. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence supporting microbial congruence and discordance in these two communities. Current evidence suggests that osseointegrated implants truly create unique microenvironments that force microbial adaptation and selection. Further studies that revisit the “microbial reservoir” hypothesis and identify species that play an etiologic role in peri‐implant disease and examine their transmission from teeth are needed.     

Association of Preventive Maintenance Therapy Compliance and Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Background: This study aims to investigate association between peri‐implant maintenance therapy (PIMT) and the frequency of peri‐implant diseases and to further identify factors that contribute to failure of PIMT compliance. Methods: A cross‐sectional study on patients who were healthy and partially edentulous was conducted. They were grouped in the following categories according to PIMT compliance: 1) regular compliers (RC) (≥2 PIMT/year); 2) erratic compliers (EC) (<2 PIMT/year); and 3) non‐compliers (NC) (no PIMT). Radiographic and clinical analyses were carried out including probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), mucosal redness (MR), suppuration (SUP), keratinized mucosa dimension, and marginal bone loss. A multiple logistic regression model was estimated at implant and patient level to obtain adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and to control possible confounding effects among variables. Results: Overall, 206 implants in 115 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. At patient level, it was shown that association between compliance and peri‐implant condition was statistically significant (P = 0.04). Compliance was associated with 86% fewer conditions of peri‐implantitis. The probability of PIMT compliance was substantially associated with frequency of peri‐implantitis (OR = 0.13, P = 0.01). Patients with a history of periodontal disease multiplied their probability of being EC (versus NC) 4.23 times with respect to not having a history of periodontal disease (P = 0.02). Moreover, light smokers significantly resulted to be NC compared with RC (P = 0.04) and EC (P = 0.02). Nevertheless, mucositis was not found to be statistically associated with level of compliance. In addition, PD, PI, BOP, MR, and SUP varied significantly according to PIMT compliance and peri‐implant condition. Conclusions: Peri‐implant maintenance compliance ≥2 PIMT/year seems to be crucial to prevent peri‐implantitis in healthy patients. Furthermore, history of periodontal disease and disease severity, as well as its extent and a smoking habit, appear to be factors that influence the compliance risk profile (NCT02789306).     

Implant Patient Compliance Varies by Periodontal Treatment History

Background: This retrospective study aims to assess compliance to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) among patients treated with dental implants with different periodontitis histories and the possible influence of their compliance on peri‐implant marginal bone level. Methods: Dental records of 106 patients treated with at least one dental implant were reviewed. A single operator who did not provide care to the patients recorded the following during the first year of implant function (first year of follow‐up), during the first 5 years of follow‐up, and during the entire follow‐up duration: 1) number of recalls; 2) compliance, calculated from registered attendance; 3) periodontal disease history; 4) peri‐implant radiographic bone level from most recent examination; and 5) clinical parameters including probing depth and bleeding on probing. Clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed at site level and analyzed for possible associations among them and with demographic parameters. Results: Collected data were based on 156 implants with an average of 6.5 ± 3.4 years (range: 1 to 13 years) in function. Patients with periodontitis history demonstrated greater compliance than patients without periodontitis history during the two longer follow‐up times. Over time, the majority of patients demonstrated partial compliance (71% to 80% of patients). Peri‐implant bone level averaged 0.9 ± 1.1 mm, without significant association with compliance level; however, positive periodontitis history and more years in function were significantly associated with greater peri‐implant bone loss. Conclusions: Patients with implants partially comply with scheduled SPT, regardless of periodontitis history. Patients who had received periodontal treatment demonstrated better compliance than those without prior periodontal therapy experiences.     

Possible impact of inflammatory status on C‐telopeptide pyridinoline cross‐links of Type I collagen and osteocalcin levels around oral implants with peri‐implantitis: a controlled clinical trial

Summary Detection of progression level of peri‐implantitis may help in the prevention of oral implant failure. C‐telopeptide pyridinoline crosslinks of Type I collagen (ICTP) and osteocalcin (OC) are specific markers of bone turnover and bone degradation. Determination of the ICTP and OC levels in the peri‐implant sulcus fluid (PISF) may predict the metabolic and/or inflammatory changes in the peri‐implant bone. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate ICTP and OC levels in the PISF for oral implants with and without peri‐implant bone destruction and correlate these levels with the traditional clinical peri‐implant parameters (probing depth, plaque index, gingival index and gingival bleeding time index) and radiographic bone level measurements. Fifteen patients with 30 peri‐implant sites with bone destruction (radiographic bone loss) and health were included. Clinical parameters were measured and PISF was collected from the sites. Peri‐implant sulcus fluid ICTP and OC levels were detected by radioimmunoassay technique from PISF samples. All clinical parameters demonstrated a significant increase in peri‐implantitis sites compared with healthy sites. The PISF volume of the peri‐implantitis sites was also significantly higher than of the healthy peri‐implant sites. Although not statistically significant, a trend of increase was demonstrated in ICTP PISF samples sampled from peri‐implantitis sites compared with healthy sites. A significant increase was noticed for OC PISF level in peri‐implantitis sites compared with healthy ones. As well as peri‐implant clinical measurements, volumetric changes at PISF may be counted as an important clinical parameter to distinguish the bone destruction sites from healthy sites around oral implants.     

The evaluation of peri‐implant sulcus fluid osteocalcin,osteopontin, and osteonectin levels in peri‐implant diseases

1 Background

Peri‐implant mucositis is an inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding an implant. Peri‐implantitis refers to a process characterized by peri‐implant bone loss along with an inflammation of the soft tissues. Osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin proteins are related to bone remodeling. The aim of the present study was to investigate peri‐implant sulcus fluid (PISF) osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin levels in peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis.

2 Methods

Fifty‐two implants with peri‐implantitis, 46 implants with peri‐implant mucositis, and 47 control implants were included in the study. Clinical parameters including probing depth, modified sulcus bleeding index and modified plaque index were recorded. PISF osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin levels were analyzed by ELISA kits.

3 Results

There were no significant differences in PISF osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin total amounts between healthy controls, peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis groups (P > 0.05). Probing depths were not correlated with PISF osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin levels in the study groups (P > 0.05).

4 Conclusions

Soft tissue inflammation around dental implants does not cause a change in osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin levels in PISF. Also, peri‐implantitis does not seem to give rise to an increase in PISF levels of osteocalcin, osteopontin, and osteonectin.     

Implant surface roughness and patient factors on long‐term peri‐implant bone loss

Dental implant placement is a common treatment procedure in current dental practice. High implant survival rates as well as limited peri‐implant bone loss has been achieved over the past decades due to continuous modifications of implant design and surface topography. Since the turn of the millennium, implant surface modifications have focused on stronger and faster bone healing. This has not only yielded higher implant survival rates but also allowed modifications in surgical as well as prosthetic treatment protocols such as immediate implant placement and immediate loading. Stable crestal bone levels have been considered a key factor in implant success because it is paramount for long‐term survival, aesthetics as well as peri‐implant health. Especially during the past decade, clinicians and researchers have paid much attention to peri‐implant health and more specifically to the incidence of bone loss. This could furthermore increase the risk for peri‐implantitis, the latter often diagnosed as ongoing bone loss and pocket formation beyond the normal biological range in the presence of purulence or bleeding on probing. Information on the effect of surface topography on bone loss or peri‐implantitis, a disease process that is to be evaluated in the long‐term, is also scarce. Therefore, the current narrative review discusses whether long‐term peri‐implant bone loss beyond physiological bone adaptation is affected by the surface roughness of dental implants. Based on comparative studies, evaluating implants with comparable design but different surface roughness, it can be concluded that average peri‐implant bone loss around the moderately rough and minimally rough surfaces is less than around rough surfaces. However, due to the multifactorial cause for bone loss the clinical impact of surface roughness alone on bone loss and peri‐implantitis risk seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Furthermore, there is growing evidence that certain patient factors, such as a history of periodontal disease and smoking, lead to more peri‐implant bone loss.     

Increased Levels of Dissolved Titanium Are Associated With Peri‐Implantitis – A Cross‐Sectional Study

Background: Peri‐implantitis represents a disruption of the biocompatible interface between the titanium dioxide layer of the implant surface and the peri‐implant tissues. Increasing preclinical data suggest that peri‐implantitis microbiota not only triggers an inflammatory immune response but also causes electrochemical alterations of the titanium surfaces, i.e., corrosion, that aggravate this inflammatory response. Thus, it was hypothesized that there is an association between dissolution of titanium from dental implants, which suggests corrosion, and peri‐implantitis in humans. The objective of this study is to compare levels of dissolved titanium in submucosal plaque collected from healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis. Methods: Submucosal plaque from 20 implants with peri‐implantitis and 20 healthy implants was collected with sterile curets from 30 participants. Levels of titanium were quantified using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and normalized for mass of bacterial DNA per sample to exclude confounding by varying amounts of plaque per site. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimated equations to adjust for clustering of implants per participant. Results: Implants with peri‐implantitis harbored significantly higher mean levels of titanium (0.85 ± 2.47) versus healthy implants (0.07 ± 0.19) after adjusting for amount of plaque collected per site (P = 0.033). Conclusions: Greater levels of dissolved titanium were detected in submucosal plaque around implants with peri‐implantitis compared with healthy implants, indicating an association between titanium dissolution and peri‐implantitis. Factors triggering titanium dissolution, as well as the role of titanium corrosion in the peri‐implant inflammatory process, warrant further investigation.     

Prevalence,Etiology and Treatment of Peri‐Implant Mucositis and Peri‐Implantitis: A Survey of Periodontists in the United States

Background: Currently, information available on the exact prevalence and standard therapeutic protocol of peri‐implant diseases is insufficient. The aim of this survey was to investigate the perceived prevalence, etiology, and management of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis by periodontists in the United States. Methods: A twenty‐question survey was developed. Periodontists currently practicing in the United States were contacted by an e‐mail that contained a link to access the survey. Results: Two hundred eighty periodontists (79.3% males; 62.9% with >10 years in practice, 75.7% in private practice) completed the survey. Most (96.1%) of the participants were placing implants (58.3% for >10 years and 32.4% >150 implants/year). The majority reported that the prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis in their practices is up to 25% but is higher in the general US population and that up to 10% of implants must be removed due to peri‐implantitis. There was agreement among contributing etiologic factors such as: 1) plaque; 2) smoking; 3) adverse loading; 4) oral hygiene; 5) use of antimicrobial gel/mouthrinse; 6) non‐surgical debridement; 7) use of systemic antibiotics; and 8) 3‐month supportive care for treatment of peri‐implantitis. Significant heterogeneity was recorded in relation to the instruments used for debridement, use and type of surgical treatment, and materials used for regeneration. Only 5.1% believed that treatment is very effective. Conclusions: This survey indicates that peri‐implant diseases are a frequently encountered problem in periodontal practices and that the absence of a standard therapeutic protocol results in significant empirical use of therapeutic modalities and a moderately effective treatment outcome.     

Implant Abutment Cleaning by Plasma of Argon: 5‐Year Follow‐Up of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Contamination of implant abutments could potentially influence the peri‐implant tissue inflammatory response. The aim of the present study is to assess the radiographic bone changes around customized, platform‐switched abutments placed according to the “one‐abutment‐one‐time” protocol, with and without plasma of argon cleaning treatment. Methods: Thirty healthy patients with thin gingival biotype (<1 mm) and history of periodontal disease received one maxillary implant each. Immediately before abutment connection, patients were randomly assigned to control group (cleaning protocol by steaming) or test group (plasma of argon treatment). Outcome measures were: 1) success rate of implants and prostheses; 2) biologic and prosthetic complications; 3) peri‐implant marginal bone loss (MBL); 4) esthetic and periodontal parameters; and 5) patient satisfaction. Results: Neither implants nor prostheses were lost in either group at the 5‐year follow‐up examination. Overall, both groups showed a slight amount of peri‐implant bone loss from baseline to 5 years. A statistically higher mean MBL was found in the control group compared with the test group at 6, 24, and 60 months after crown connection. Nevertheless, during the entire follow‐up period, intragroup comparison demonstrated statistically significant mean MBL in the control group, but not in the test group. The test group showed a higher mean gain at the soft tissue margin, but not for the papilla. All implants showed good periodontal parameters, with no significant differences between groups. Conclusion: Plasma of argon could be used to disinfect implant abutments before insertion to minimize future peri‐implant bone resorption.     

Molecular tools for preventing and improving diagnosis of peri‐implant diseases

Peri‐implantitis is an inflammatory disease of tissues surrounding osseointegrated dental implants. Inflammation affecting soft and hard peri‐implant tissues can cause alveolar bone resorption and subsequent implant loss. Clinical surveillance and early diagnosis are of paramount importance to reduce clinical failures and improve implant survival. Current diagnosis of implants is based on clinical and radiological signs. Molecular tests are an emerging diagnostic methodology, which potentially can help to detect and prevent early peri‐implantitis and monitor the efficacy of therapy as well. A plethora of potential biomarkers are potentially available to support the clinical diagnosis of peri‐implantitis. However, conflicting diagnostic conclusions have been reached, probably related to weak statistical results due to limited sample size or disease heterogeneity. The present paper reviews candidate diagnostic biomarkers for peri‐implantitis, including infective agents, genetic susceptibility factors, and key proteins related to inflammation and tissue remodeling.