Correlation between clinical parameters characterising peri-implant and periodontal health: A practice-based research in Spain in a series of patients with implants installed 4-5 years ago

Objectives: To explore periimplant health (and relation with periodontal status) 4-5 years after implant insertion. Study Design: A practice-based dental research network multicentre study was performed in 11 Spanish centres. The first patient/month with implant insertion in 2004 was considered. Per patient four teeth (one per quadrant) showing the highest bone loss in the 2004 panoramic X-ray were selected for periodontal status assessment. Bone losses in implants were calculated as the differences between 2004 and 2009 bone levels in radiographs. Results: A total of 117 patients were included. Of the 408 teeth considered, 73 (17.9%) were lost in 2009 (losing risk: >50% for bone losses ≥7mm). A total of 295 implants were reviewed. Eight of 117 (6.8%) patients had lost implants (13 of 295 implants installed; 4.4%). Implant loss rate (quadrant status) was 1.4% (edentulous), 3.6% (preserved teeth), and 11.1% (lost teeth) (p=0.037). The percentage of implant loss significantly (p<0.001) increased when the medial/distal bone loss was ≥3 mm. The highest (p≤0.001) pocket depths were found in teeth with ≥5mm and implants with ≥3mm bone losses, with similar mean values (≥4mm), associated with higher rates of plaque index and bleeding by probing. Conclusions: The significant bi-directional relation between plaque and bone loss, and between each of these two parameters/signs and pocket depths or bleeding (both in teeth and implants, and between them) together with the higher percentage of implants lost when the bone loss of the associated teeth was ≥3 mm suggest that the patient’s periodontal status is a critical issue in predicting implant health/lesion. Key words:Implants, periimplantitis, periodontitis, oral health, practice-based research     

Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque control

Objective: The aim of the present study was to describe some clinical periodontal features of partially edentulous patients referred for the treatment of peri‐implantitis. Material and methods: The 23 subjects involved in this study were selected from consecutive patients referred to the department of Periodontology Södra Älvsborgs Hospital, Borås, Sweden, for treatment of peri‐implantitis during 2006. The patients had clinical signs of peri‐implantitis around one or more dental implants (i.e.≥6 mm pockets, bleeding on pockets and/or pus and radiographic images of bone loss to≥3 threads of the implants) and remaining teeth in the same and/or opposite jaw. The following clinical variables were recorded: Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), Access/capability to oral hygiene at implant site (yes/no), Function Time. The patients were categorized in the following sub‐groups: Periodontitis/No periodontitis, Bone loss/No bone loss at teeth, Smoker/Non‐smokers. Results: Out of the 23 patients, the majority (13) had minimal bone loss at teeth and no current periodontitis; 5 had bone loss at teeth exceeding 1/3 of the length of the root but not current periodontitis and only 5 had current periodontitis. Six patients were smokers (i.e. smoking more than 10 cig/day). The site level analysis showed that only 17 (6%) of the 281 teeth present had ≥1 pocket of ≥6mm, compared to 58 (53%) of the total 109 implants (28 ITI^® and 81 Brånemark^®); 74% of the implants had no accessibility to proper oral hygiene. High proportion of implants with diagnosis of peri‐implantitis were associated with no accessibility/capability for appropriate oral hygiene measures, while accessibility/capability was rarely associated with peri‐implantitis. Indeed 48% of the implants presenting peri‐implantitis were those with no accessibility/capability for proper oral hygiene (65% positive predict value) with respect to 4% of the implants with accessibility/capability (82% negative predict value). Conclusion: The results of the study indicate that local factors such as accessibility for oral hygiene at the implant sites seems to be related to the presence or absence of peri‐implantitis. Peri‐implantitis was a frequent finding in subjects having signs of minimal loss of supporting bone around the remaining natural dentition and no signs of presence of periodontitis (i.e. presence of periodontal pockets of ≥6 mm at natural teeth). Only 6 of the examinated subjects were smokers. In view of these results we should like to stress the importance of giving proper oral hygiene instructions to the patients who are rehabilitated with dental implant and of proper prosthetic constructions that allow accessibility for oral hygiene around implants.     

Outcome of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: results from a 2-year prospective clinical study in humans

Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of a surgical procedure based on pocket elimination and bone re‐contouring for the treatment of peri‐implantitis. Material and methods: The 31 subjects involved in this study presented clinical signs of peri‐implantitis at one or more dental implants (i.e. ≥6 mm pockets, bleeding on probing and/or suppuration and radiographic evidence of ≥2 mm bone loss). The patients were treated with a surgical procedure based on pocket elimination and bone re‐contouring and plaque control before and following the surgery. At the time of surgery, the amount of bone loss at implants was recorded. Results: Two years following treatment, 15 (48%) subjects had no signs of peri‐implant disease; 24 patients (77%) had no implants with a probing pocket depth of ≥6 mm associated with bleeding and/or suppuration following probing. A total of 36 implants (42%) out of the 86 with initial diagnosis of peri‐implantitis presented peri‐implant disease despite treatment. The proportion of implants that became healthy following treatment was higher for those with minor initial bone loss (2–4 mm bone loss as assessed during surgery) compared with the implants with a bone loss of ≥5 mm (74% vs. 40%). Among the 18 implants with bone loss of ≥7 mm, seven were extracted. Between the 6‐month and the 2‐year examination, healthy implants following treatment tended to remain stable, while deepening of pockets was observed for those implants with residual pockets. Conclusion: The results of this study indicated that a surgical procedure based on pocket elimination and bone re‐contouring and plaque control before and following surgery was an effective therapy for treatment of peri‐implantitis for the majority of subjects and implants. However, complete disease resolution at the site level seems to depend on the initial bone loss at implants. Implants with no signs of peri‐implantitis following treatment tended to remain healthy during the 2‐year period, while a tendency for disease progression was observed for the implants that still showed signs of peri‐implant disease following treatment. To cite this article:
Serino G, Turri A. Outcome of surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: results from a 2‐year prospective clinical study in humans.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 1214–1220.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.02098.x     

Status of teeth adjacent to single-tooth implants

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the status of teeth adjacent to single-tooth implants in the anterior and posterior jaw during a follow-up of more than 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-eight single-tooth implants and 148 adjacent teeth were followed for a mean of 58 months. Implant survival rate, peri-implant structures, and prosthetic complication rates were evaluated. Crowns and periodontal status of adjacent teeth were compared at crown placement and at the last examination. Horizontal distance from the implant edge to adjacent teeth was calculated and compared for anterior and posterior regions. The influence of approximal crestal bone resorption of the adjacent teeth was calculated using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: The clinical findings for implants (one loss), peri-implant structures, and prosthetic complication rates (three crown fractures) were excellent. There was a high proportion of intact adjacent teeth in both anterior and posterior regions at crown placement and at the follow-up examination. No adjacent teeth required extraction or endodontic treatment, and only four required restoration. Comparison of the periodontal status at crown placement and at follow-up revealed no differences for plaque and bleeding indices or for pocket depth of adjacent teeth. There was a significant influence of the horizontal distance on approximal bone loss in the closer distance of the anterior region, but not in the posterior region. CONCLUSION: The crown and periodontal status of teeth adjacent to single-implant restorations was excellent. The approximal bone crest reduction of the adjacent teeth was significantly influenced by the horizontal distance between the implant edge and neighboring tooth.     

Implants in regenerated bone in patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis: a prospective longitudinal study

The aim of this prospective longitudinal study of patients treated for generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP) was the clinical, microbiologic, and radiologic longitudinal evaluation of implants placed into bone regenerated by the guided bone regeneration (GBR) technique. Ten patients with GAP who had lost either one or two maxillary incisors or premolars through periodontal disease and whose alveolar bone was neither high nor wide enough for implant placement were enrolled in the study. GBR was carried out in a two-stage procedure using titanium-reinforced extended polytetrafluoroethylene membranes and titanium screws. No bone graft or bone substitute materials were used. After 6 to 8 months, the membranes and supporting screws were removed, and a total of 15 implants (Nobel Biocare) were placed. The control group comprised 10 periodontally healthy patients who had a total of II implants (Nobel Biocare) placed in the maxilla (incisor and premolar region) without GBR because of aplasia, trauma, or endodontic lesions. All patients were examined 2 to 4 weeks before extraction of the nonretainable teeth (baseline) and again immediately after placement of the superstructure. Further examinations were performed within the framework of a 3-month recall schedule over a 3-year period. At each session, clinical parameters (probing pocket depths, bleeding on probing, gingival recession, clinical attachment level, Gingival Index, and Plaque Index) were recorded at teeth and implants, and the composition of the subgingival microflora was determined by dark-field microscopy and DNA probe. Intraoral radiographs were taken for control purposes at baseline, immediately after insertion of the superstructure, and 1 and 3 years later. The GBR technique yielded a horizontal and vertical bone gain of 4.5 to 7.0 mm in the GAP patients. The clinical, microbiologic, and radiologic findings indicated healthy periodontal and periimplant conditions in both patient groups throughout the study. However, a slightly increased attachment loss (0.65 mm) and bone loss (1.78 mm) were recorded at the implants in the regenerated bone after 3 years of loading. The 3-year implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. The possibility of continuous attachment loss and bone loss occurring at teeth and implants in regenerated bone cannot be ruled out in patients treated for aggressive periodontitis. The prognosis for the retention of the teeth and implants is thus open to question.     

Crestal Bone Changes at Teeth and Implants in Periodontally Healthy and Periodontally Compromised Patients. A 10‐Year Comparative Case‐Series Study

Background: Limited data exist on the longitudinal crestal bone changes around teeth compared with implants in partially edentulous patients. This study sought to compare the 10‐year radiographic crestal bone changes (bone level [BL]) around teeth and implants in periodontally compromised (PCPs) and periodontally healthy (PHPs) patients. Methods: A total of 120 patients were evaluated for the radiographic crestal BL around dental implants and adjacent teeth at time of implant crown insertion and at the 10‐year follow‐up. Sixty patients had a previous history of periodontitis (PCPs), and the remaining 60 were PHPs. In each category (PCP and PHP), two different implant systems were used. The mean BL change at the implant and at the adjacent tooth at the interproximal area was calculated by subtracting the radiographic crestal BL at the time of crown cementation from the radiographic crestal BL at the 10‐year follow‐up. Results: At 10 years after therapy, the survival rate ranged from 80% to 95% for subgroups for implants, whereas it was 100% for the adjacent teeth. In all eight different patient categories evaluated, teeth demonstrated a significantly more stable radiographic BL compared with adjacent dental implants (teeth BL, 0.44 ± 0.23 mm; implant BL, 2.28 ± 0.72 mm; P <0.05). Radiographic BL changes around teeth seemed not to be influenced by the presence or absence of advanced bone loss (≥3 mm) at the adjacent implants. Conclusions: Natural teeth yielded better long‐term results with respect to survival rate and marginal BL changes compared with dental implants. Moreover, these findings also extend to teeth with an initial reduced periodontal attachment level, provided adequate periodontal treatment and maintenance are performed. As a consequence, the decision of tooth extraction attributable to periodontal reasons in favor of a dental implant should be carefully considered in partially edentulous patients.     

108颗牙种植体修复一年后的临床及X线评价

目的评价牙种植体负重1年后的临床疗效,并分析种植体周围粘膜炎症与骨吸收的关系。方法对70例种植义齿修复患者共108颗负重1年以上的IMZ和Frialit-2种植体进行临床及X线检查。结果所有种植体均无松动及种植体周围X线透射影等种植失败症状,牙槽骨高度降低的均值为（0.63±0.78）mm;粘膜有炎症的位点占所有检测位点的32.9%。重度炎症位点的骨吸收值明显高于轻度炎症位点和健康位点（P<0.05）。大多数种植义齿修复患者的口腔卫生及牙周健康状况均较差。结论IMZ和Frialit-2种植体负重1年后的临床效果满意;种植体周围粘膜炎症是种植体骨吸收的主要原因之一;消除或控制粘膜炎症、改善口腔卫生和邻牙的牙周健康状况,是接受种植的患者迫切需要解决的问题。     

Long-term evaluation of osseointegrated dental implants in the treatment of partly edentulous patients

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic and microbiological status of implants after 10 years of functional load in patients treated for partial edentulism. METHOD: 15 patients, each successfully treated with 2-6 implants ad modum Br?nemark placed in free-standing fixed prostheses, were included in the study. RESULTS: Clinical evaluation revealed similar degrees of inflammation around teeth and implants. The probing pocket depth (PPD) was significantly greater around implants than around teeth. The mean marginal bone loss during 10 years of functional load was comparable to that found at the time of the 5-year follow-up. 74% of the implants remained free of marginal bone loss exceeding 1 mm. Marginal bone loss exceeding 2 mm, was found at only 5 sites. No marked differences in bacteria were present between teeth and implants. T. denticola, S. intermedia and P. micros were the commonest organisms detected around teeth and implants. The periodontal pathogens A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, B. forsythus, and T. denticola, were found at implants with a marginal bone loss of more than 2 mm. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the long-term results with implants in partially dentate patients are similar to those seen in edentulous patients and that no significant change occurred after 5-year follow-up over an additional period of 5 years.     

Supportive periodontal therapy for high‐ and low‐risk patients

Aim: The validity of the risk assessment in predicting tooth loss due to periodontitis or disease progression was explored. Methods: Systemic factors, smoking status, bleeding on probing (BoP) percentage, number of residual pockets (probing pocket depth ≥6 mm), tooth loss, and alveolar bone loss in relation to age were the variables of the risk assessment. Based on an improving or deteriorating risk assessment in 2005 compared with 1999, 89 patients were divided into either a high‐ or low‐risk group. Findings were compared with the 2008 outcome. Results: Using BoP ≤ 20% as the cut‐off, the relationship between BoP and interleukin‐1 genotype status was neither significant in 2005 nor in 2008. Neither the high‐ nor low‐risk group was predictive for tooth loss. Patients displayed similar proportions of probing pocket depths ≥6 mm in 2005 and in 2008. Linear stepwise regression analysis demonstrated that only the number of supportive periodontal therapy visits explained the number of teeth lost due to periodontitis (P < 0.01). Conclusions: The categorization of patients into high‐ and low‐risk groups, according to the periodontal risk assessment model applied within a supportive periodontal therapy period of 3 years, had limitations in predicting future tooth loss.     

Implant Survival and Marginal Bone Loss at Turned and Oxidized Implants in Periodontitis‐Susceptible Smokers and Never‐Smokers: A Retrospective,Clinical, Radiographic Case‐Control Study

Background: Little is known about the long‐term outcome of oxidized surface oral implants, especially in periodontitis‐susceptible smokers. The aim of this study is to determine implant survival and marginal bone loss at turned and oxidized implants in smokers and never‐smokers with periodontitis. Methods: Forty smokers and 40 never‐smokers with experience of advanced periodontal disease, treated with implants 5 years previously, are included in this study. Groups were matched for sex, oral hygiene, and implant distribution, and patients were subgrouped by implant surface type (turned or oxidized). Results: The overall implant survival rate was 96.9% in never‐smokers and 89.6% in smokers. Compared with oxidized implants, turned implants failed more frequently in smokers. In smokers, mean (standard error of the mean) marginal bone loss at 5 years was 1.54 (0.21) mm at turned and 1.16 (0.24) mm at oxidized implants. In never‐smokers, significantly greater bone loss was found at oxidized implants, 1.26 (0.15) mm, than at turned implants, 0.84 (0.14) mm. Oxidized implants demonstrated similar bone loss for both groups. Turned implants lost significantly more bone in smokers. Compared with never‐smokers, the smokers’ likelihood ratio for implant failure was 4.68, 6.40 for turned and 0.00 for oxidized implants. Conclusions: The results of the study underscore the need for prevention and cessation of smoking. Turned implants failed more frequently and lost more marginal bone in smokers. In contrast, oxidized implants showed similar failure rates and bone loss in smokers and never‐smokers. Turned implants displayed less bone loss than oxidized implants in never‐smokers. Oxidized surface implants are more suitable for patients susceptible to periodontitis who smoke.     

Clinical follow-up of unilateral, fixed dental prosthesis on maxillary implants

Aims/Background: The aims of the present study were to evaluate (1) the success rate of unilateral maxillary fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) on implants in patients at a periodontal clinic referred for periodontal treatment, (2) the prevalence of varying mechanical and biological complications and (3) effects of potential risk factors on the success rate. Material and methods: Fifty consecutive patients were invited to participate in a follow‐up. The patients had received FDPs on implants between November 2000 and December 2003 after treatment to achieve optimal peridontal health, and the FDPs had been in function for at least 3 years. A questionnaire was sent to the patients before the follow‐up examination. Forty‐six patients with 116 implants were examined. The follow‐up comprised clinical and radiographic examinations and evaluations of treatment outcome. Results: Before implant treatment, 13% of the teeth were extracted; of these, 80% were extracted due to periodontal disease. No implants had been lost before implant loading. One implant in one patient fractured after 3 years of functional loading and three implants in another patient after 6.5 years. The most frequent mechanical complications were veneer fractures and loose bridge screws. Patients with peri‐implant mucositis had significantly more bleeding on probing around teeth and implants. Patients with peri‐implantitis at the follow‐up had more deep periodontal pockets around their remaining teeth compared with individuals without peri‐implantitis, but these differences were not significant. Smokers had significantly fewer teeth, more periodontal pockets ≥4 mm and a tendency towards greater marginal bone loss at the follow‐up, compared with non‐smokers. Conclusion: In the short term, overloading and bruxism seem more hazardous for implant treatment, compared with a history of periodontitis. To cite this article:
Wahlström M, Sagulin G‐B, Jansson LE. Clinical follow‐up of unilateral, fixed dental prosthesis on maxillary implants
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 1294–1300.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01948.x     

Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System

AIM: The aim of this 10-year study was to compare the failure, success and complication rates between patients having lost their teeth due to periodontitis or other reasons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-three patients who received 112 hollow screw implants (HS) of the ITI Dental Implant System were divided into two groups: group A - eight patients with 21 implants having lost their teeth due to chronic periodontitis; group B - forty five patients with 91 implants without a history of periodontitis. One and 10 years after surgical placement, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. The incidences of peri-implantitis were noticed over the 10 years of regular supportive periodontal therapy. RESULTS: Success criteria at 10 years were set at: pocket probing depth (PPD) 相似文献   

Retrospective clinical evaluation of tapered screw-vent implants: results after up to eight years of clinical function

Uncertainty about the causes of peri-implant bone loss and difficulties in measuring it often have resulted in omission of bone loss data from published long-term implant studies. This nonrandomized, uncontrolled, retrospective study evaluated the clinical outcomes of treatment with tapered, multithreaded implants with a special emphasis on peri-implant crestal bone status. Chart reviews were conducted of 60 patients who had been treated with 267 implants for the placement of 1 or more missing and/or unsalvageable teeth, and who met general inclusion criteria for dental implant therapy. In all cases, marginal bone changes were calculated from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) or the implant neck to the crestal bone level with standardized radiographs taken at implant placement (baseline) and during annual follow-up. After a mean followup of 7.5 years, implant survival was 98.5% (263/267) for all implants placed, and implant success was 96.2% (253/263) for all surviving implants. No discernible bone loss was evident in 88% of surviving implants. Crestal bone loss was observed in 25% (15/60) of total study subjects and in 12% (32/263) of all surviving implants: 29 implants exhibited 1 mm of bone loss and 3 implants lost 2 mm of bone. Low-density maxillary jawbone and more extensive bone remodeling, which were required around implants immediately placed into extraction sockets, were the probable causes of observed bone loss in this study. Implants exhibited excellent long-term outcomes with little or no bone loss.     

Reliability of periodontal diagnostic tools for monitoring peri‐implant health and disease

The prevalence, causes and consequences of crestal bone loss at dental implants are a matter of debate. In recent years, a high prevalence of peri‐implant soft‐tissue inflammation, associated with peri‐implant bone loss, has been reported and the need for treatments similar to those offered for natural teeth affected by periodontitis has been proposed. This suggestion is based on the assumption that periodontal indices, such as probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing, are reliable indicators of the peri‐implant tissue conditions and good predictors of future bone loss. However, based on a critical review of the literature in the present paper, it is concluded that periodontal indices are not reliable either for identifying peri‐implant disease or for predicting future risk for peri‐implant crestal bone loss and implant failure. The long‐term experiences with dental implants, presented in the literature, indicate that the presence of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depths much larger than 4 mm and some bone loss seem to reflect, in most instances, normal conditions of well‐functioning dental implants, bearing in mind that healing of dental implants is the result of a foreign body reaction with the formation of scar tissue. Therefore, the use of probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing assessments may lead to over‐diagnosis and possibly to over‐treatment of assumed biofilm‐mediated peri‐implantitis lesions. It is the opinion of the authors of this review that a treatment should only be initiated when a clinical problem is present based on patient's symptoms (discomfort, pain), the presence of swelling, redness and pus, and significant crestal bone loss over time (as verified with radiographs). The treatment should aim at resolving the infection, which could include removal of the implant.     

老年患者种植修复成功率与满意度的随访研究

目的评估老年人种植修复的成功率和满意度,探讨可能影响种植体成功率的危险因素。 方法本研究以2015—2018年在南京医科大学附属口腔医院特诊科就诊并进行种植牙修复治疗的老年患者（≥60岁）为研究对象。种植体植入时的平均年龄为（67.47 ± 6.57）岁,共101例病例、241颗种植体。在种植修复完成后的3年内对其进行随访,记录种植体的成功率和牙周情况,并分析影响种植体成功率的危险因素。同时采用问卷调查的方法,调查患者对种植牙的满意度。采用线性回归模型及t检验来对数据进行统计分析。 结果种植体总成功率为96%,失败率为4%（10颗种植体）,3年随访期间,出血指数、菌斑指数、牙龈指数均有改善。种植体的成功率与多种因素有关,尤其是患者的牙周状态、吸烟程度以及咬合力大小等。231颗种植体在3个月、6个月、1年、2年、3年的平均边缘骨吸收量为（0.45 ± 0.61）、（0.51 ± 0.55）、（0.54 ± 0.48）、（0.60 ± 0.06）和（0.67 ± 0.25）mm,种植体周围平均探诊深度为（2.60 ± 1.42）mm,平均边缘骨吸收（0.55 ± 0.16）mm。线性回归分析结果显示,r = -0.81、SE = 0.75、R² = 0.50、P = 0.78,种植体周围牙周袋深度越大,种植体边缘骨丢失越多。患者对种植修复的总体满意度为（9.20 ± 0.94）分。 结论在满足种植适应证的前提下,术后避免咬合力过大、尽量减少吸烟及注意牙周的维护对老年缺牙患者进行种植修复的成功率很高,且患者满意度较高,可以获得良好的修复效果。     

Ten‐year results of a three‐arm prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: implant loss and radiographic bone loss

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the long‐term outcomes of implants placed in patients treated for periodontitis periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP) in relation to adhesion to supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Material and methods: One hundred and twelve partially edentulous patients were consecutively enrolled in private specialist practice and divided into three groups according to their initial periodontal condition: PHP, moderate PCP and severe PCP. Perio and implant treatment was carried out as needed. Solid screws (S), hollow screws (HS) and hollow cylinders (HC) were installed to support fixed prostheses, after successful completion of initial periodontal therapy (full‐mouth plaque score <25% and full‐mouth bleeding score <25%). At the end of treatment, patients were asked to follow an individualized SPT program. At 10 years, clinical measures and radiographic bone changes were recorded by two calibrated operators, blinded to the initial patient classification. Results: Eleven patients were lost to follow‐up. During the period of observation, 18 implants were removed because of biological complications. The implant survival rate was 96.6%, 92.8% and 90% for all implants and 98%, 94.2% and 90% for S‐implants only, respectively, for PHP, moderate PCP and severe PCP. The mean bone loss was 0.75 (± 0.88) mm in PHP, 1.14 (± 1.11) mm in moderate PCP and 0.98 (± 1.22) mm in severe PCP, without any statistically significant difference. The percentage of sites, with bone loss ≥3 mm, was, respectively, 4.7% for PHP, 11.2% for moderate PCP and 15.1% for severe PCP, with a statistically significant difference between PHP and severe PCP (P<0.05). Lack of adhesion to SPT was correlated with a higher incidence of bone loss and implant loss. Conclusion: Patients with a history of periodontitis presented a lower survival rate and a statistically significantly higher number of sites with peri‐implant bone loss. Furtheremore, PCP, who did not completely adhere to the SPT, were found to present a higher implant failure rate. This underlines the value of the SPT in enhancing the long‐term outcomes of implant therapy, particularly in subjects affected by periodontitis, in order to control reinfection and limit biological complications. To cite this article:
Roccuzzo M, De Angelis N, Bonino L, Aglietta M. Ten‐year results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: implant loss and radiographic bone loss.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 490–496.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2009.01886.x     

Extra short dental implants supporting an overdenture in the edentulous maxilla: a proof of concept

Objectives: This study investigates the outcome of short implants additionally placed with longer implants to support a maxillary overdenture. Materials and methods: Twelve patients received six implants to support a maxillary overdenture. Only one patient still had two molars in the maxilla, while the others had no remaining teeth. The status of the opposing arch was diverse. The distal implant in each quadrant was 6 mm in height (S) and the middle implants ranged between 10 and 14 mm (L). All implants were placed following a one‐stage procedure and early loaded (6 weeks). Clinical and radiological parameters were assessed 6, 12 and 24 months after loading. Results: One short implant failed 2 weeks after surgery, probably due to early mobilization by the provisional prosthesis. The mean bone loss on the rough part of the implant was 0.7 mm (S) vs. 1.3 mm (L) during the first year and 0.3 mm (S) vs. 0.2 mm (L) during the second year after loading. The mean implant stability quotient values were 67 (S) vs. 70 (L) at placement and 75 (S) vs. 78 (L) after 1 year. At the 2‐year follow‐ up, all prostheses were still stable and comfortable. Conclusion: An overdenture on six implants, of which two have a reduced length, might represent a successful treatment option. No significant difference could be found between both implant lengths at 2 years' follow‐up. However, bone loss with short implants may increase the likelihood of failure.     

Associations Between Salivary Bone Metabolism Markers and Periodontal Breakdown

Background: A dual relationship between glycemic status and bone remodeling was suggested recently. The present study aimed to 1) analyze salivary levels of receptor activator for nuclear factor κ‐B ligand (RANKL), osteoprotegerin, osteocalcin, and osteopontin as potential biomarkers of alveolar bone loss and 2) determine whether the glycemic status affects the relationship between bone remodeling markers and periodontal status. Methods: Salivary levels of RANKL, osteoprotegerin, osteocalcin, osteopontin, and serum glycosylated hemoglobin A1c, insulin, and glucose were analyzed in 220 participants divided into four groups according to their periodontal health status: 1) 79 participants had at least 14 teeth with probing depth (PD) ≥4 mm (generalized periodontitis [GP]); 2) 65 participants had either two or seven teeth with PD ≥4 mm (two groups of localized periodontitis [LP1 and LP2, respectively]); and 3) 76 participants had no teeth with PD ≥4 mm (non‐periodontitis control group). Results: Salivary concentrations of RANKL, osteocalcin, and osteopontin were higher, and osteoprotegerin was lower in females than in males. Salivary osteoprotegerin concentrations were higher in the GP and LP2 groups than in the control group, whereas RANKL, osteocalcin, and osteopontin were not related with periodontal status. Salivary osteopontin correlated positively with serum and salivary insulin. The association observed between increased osteoprotegerin concentrations and periodontitis was lost after salivary insulin was included into the analyses as a confounding factor. Conclusions: Salivary concentrations of bone markers are either affected by glycemic status or detected at very low levels. These factors hinder their use as salivary biomarkers of periodontitis.     

Periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant treatment

Periodontal disease is considered a risk factor in dental implant treatment. The purpose of this study was to investigate the periodontal conditions in patients requesting dental implant therapy. A total of 169 patients visiting Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Implantology at Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital were targeted. The following intraoral parameters were measured in each patient: Community Periodontal Index (CPI) score, probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Prevalence of patients with periodontal pockets was high: 38% and 28% of patients had a CPI score of code 3 and 4, respectively. Prevalence of teeth with one or more sites with PPD≥4mm was 27%. Moreover, clinical signs suggestive of periodontitis (PPD, CAL≥4mm) were found in 10-15% of tooth sites. Prevalence rates at sites with severe periodontal breakdown (PPD, CAL≥7mm) were 2-5%. These results further emphasize the importance of thorough periodontal assessment in patients prior to dental implant treatment.