Lisa J. A. Heitz-Mayfield

Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators

BACKGROUND Peri-implant diseases include peri-implant mucositis, describing an inflammatory lesion of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implantitis, which also includes loss of supporting bone. METHODS A literature search of the Medline database (Ovid), up to 21 January 2008 was carried out using a systematic approach, in order to review the evidence for diagnosis and the risk indicators for peri-implant diseases. RESULTS Experimental and clinical studies have identified various diagnostic criteria including probing parameters, radiographic assessment and peri-implant crevicular fluid and saliva analyses. Cross-sectional analyses have investigated potential risk indicators for peri-implant disease including poor oral hygiene, smoking, history of periodontitis, diabetes, genetic traits, alcohol consumption and implant surface. There is evidence that probing using a light force (0.25 N) does not damage the peri-implant tissues and that bleeding on probing (BOP) indicates presence of inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa. The probing depth, the presence of BOP, and suppuration should be assessed regularly for the diagnosis of peri-implant diseases. Radiographs are required to evaluate supporting bone levels around implants. The review identified strong evidence that poor oral hygiene, a history of periodontitis and cigarette smoking, are risk indicators for peri-implant disease. Future prospective studies are required to confirm these factors as true risk factors.

Comparative biology of chronic and aggressive periodontitis vs. peri‐implantitis

This review was undertaken to address the similarities and dissimilarities between the two disease entities of periodontitis and peri-implantitis. The overall analysis of the literature on the etiology and pathogenesis of periodontitis and peri-implantitis provided an impression that these two diseases have more similarities than differences. First, the initiation of the two diseases is dependent on the presence of a biofilm containing pathogens. While the microbiota associated with periodontitis is rich in gram-negative bacteria, a similar composition has been identified in peri-implant diseases. However, increasing evidence suggests that S. aureus may be an important pathogen in the initiation of some cases of peri-implantitis. Further research into the role of this gram-positive facultative coccus, and other putative pathogens, in the development of peri-implantitis is indicated. While the initial host response to the bacterial challenge in peri-implant mucositis appears to be identical to that encountered in gingivitis, persistent biofilm accumulation may elicit a more pronounced inflammatory response in peri-implant mucosal tissues than in the dentogingival unit. This may be a result of structural differences (such as vascularity and fibroblast-to-collagen ratios). When periodontitis and peri-implantitis were produced experimentally by applying plaque-retaining ligatures, the progression of mucositis to peri-implantitis followed a very similar sequence of events as the development of gingivitis to periodontitis. However, some of the peri-implantitis lesions appeared to have periods of rapid progression, in which the infective lesion reached the alveolar bone marrow. It is therefore reasonable to assume that peri-implantitis in humans may also display periods of accelerated destruction that are more pronounced than that observed in cases of chronic periodontitis. From a clinical point of view the identified and confirmed risk factors for periodontitis may be considered as identical to those for peri-implantitis. In addition, patients susceptible to periodontitis appear to be more susceptible to peri-implantitis than patients without a history of periodontitis. As both periodontitis and peri-implantitis are opportunistic infections, their therapy must be antiinfective in nature. The same clinical principles apply to debridement of the lesions and the maintenance of an infection-free oral cavity. However, in daily practice, such principles may occasionally be difficult to apply in peri-implantitis treatment. Owing to implant surface characteristics and limited access to the microbial habitats, surgical access may be required more frequently, and at an earlier stage, in periimplantitis treatment than in periodontal therapy. In conclusion, it is evident that periodontitis and peri-implantitis are not fundamentally different from the perspectives of etiology, pathogenesis, risk assessment, diagnosis and therapy. Nevertheless, some difference in the host response to these two infections may explain the occasional rapid progression of peri-implantitis lesions. Consequently, a diagnosed peri-implantitis should be treated without delay.

Bacteraemia due to dental flossing

AIMS The aims of this study were to (1) investigate the incidence of bacteraemia following flossing in subjects with chronic periodontitis or periodontal health; (2) identify the micro-organisms in detected bacteraemias; and (3) identify any patient or clinical factors associated with such bacteraemia. MATERIAL AND METHODS Baseline blood samples were obtained from 30 individuals with chronic periodontitis (17 M:13 F, 29-75 years) and 30 with periodontal health (17 M:13 F, 28-71 years) following a non-invasive examination. Each subjects teeth were then flossed in a standardized manner and blood samples obtained 30 s and 10 min. after flossing cessation. Blood samples were cultured in a BACTEC system and positive samples subcultured for identification. RESULTS Forty per cent of periodontitis subjects and 41% of periodontally healthy subjects tested positive for bacteraemia following flossing. Viridans streptococci, which are commonly implicated in infective endocarditis (IE), were isolated from 19% of positive subjects and accounted for 35% of microbial isolates. Twenty per cent of subjects had a detectable bacteraemia at 10 min. post-flossing. No patient or clinical factors were significantly associated with post-flossing bacteraemia. CONCLUSIONS Dental flossing can produce bacteraemia in periodontally healthy and periodontally diseased individuals at a rate comparable with that caused by some dental treatments for which antibiotic prophylaxis is given to prevent IE.

Surgical and nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Learned and unlearned concepts

This review aims to highlight concepts relating to nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy, which have been learned and unlearned over the past few decades. A number of treatment procedures, such as gingival curettage and aggressive removal of contaminated root cementum, have been unlearned. Advances in technology have resulted in the introduction of a range of new methods for use in nonsurgical periodontal therapy, including machine-driven instruments, lasers, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and local antimicrobial-delivery devices. However, these methods have not been shown to offer significant benefits over and above nonsurgical debridement using hand instruments. The method of debridement is therefore largely dependent on the preferences of the operator and the patient. Recent evidence indicates that specific systemic antimicrobials may be indicated for use as adjuncts to nonsurgical debridement in patients with advanced disease. Full-mouth disinfection protocols have been proven to be a relevant treatment option. We have learned that while nonsurgical and surgical methods result in similar long-term treatment outcomes, surgical therapy results in greater probing-depth reduction and clinical attachment gain in initially deep pockets. The surgical technique chosen seems to have limited influence upon changes in clinical attachment gain. What has not changed is the importance of thorough mechanical debridement and optimal plaque control for successful nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy.

Anti-infective treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomised controlled clinical trial

AIM To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months. RESULTS At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment. CONCLUSIONS Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins.

Consensus Statements and Clinical Recommendations for Prevention and Management of Biologic and Technical Implant Complications.

Implant treatment is highly successful, as documented in a wealth of scientific literature. However, patients and clinicians should expect to see complications within their daily practice. The aim of the papers presented by this group was to address the prevention and management of technical and biologic complications in order to make recommendations both for clinical practice and future research. Three topics were chosen within the field of complications of implant treatment, and these addressed prevention and therapy of peri-implant disease and prevention of technical complications. Three systematic reviews were conducted and formed the basis for discussion of working group 5. The discussions led to the development of statements and recommendations determined by group consensus based on the findings of the systematic reviews. These were then presented and accepted following modifications as necessary at plenary sessions.No abstract available.

Systemic antibiotics in periodontal therapy

Periodontitis is a biofilm infection with a mixed microbial aetiology. Periodontitis is generally treated by non-surgical mechanical debridement and regular periodontal maintenance care. Periodontal surgery may be indicated for some patients to improve access to the root surface for mechanical debridement. A range of systemic antibiotics for treatment of periodontitis has been documented, with some studies showing superior clinical outcomes following adjunctive antibiotics while others do not. This has resulted in controversy as to the role of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of periodontal diseases. Recent systematic reviews have provided an evidence-based assessment of the possible benefits of adjunctive antibiotics in periodontal therapy. This review aims to provide an update on clinical issues of when and how to prescribe systemic antibiotics in periodontal therapy.

Diagnosis and management of peri-implant diseases.

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory lesions which may affect the peri-implant mucosa only (peri-implant mucositis) or also result in loss of supporting bone (peri-implantitis). Peri-implantitis may lead to loss of the implant. Diagnosis of peri-implant disease requires the use of conventional probing to identify the presence of bleeding on probing, and suppuration, both signs of clinical inflammation. Radiographs are required to detect loss of supporting bone. Baseline probing measurements and radiographs should be obtained once the restoration of the implant is completed to allow longitudinal monitoring of peri-implant conditions. Two cross-sectional reports from Sweden indicate that the prevalence of peri-implant disease is high. Smokers and patients who have a history of periodontitis are more at risk for peri-implant disease. The main goal of treatment of peri-implant disease is to control the infection and to prevent disease progression. A number of studies have documented the successful treatment of peri-implant mucositis combining mechanical debridement and chemical plaque control. There is evidence supporting antimicrobial treatment regimens in combination with non-surgical or surgical debridement for peri-implantitis treatment. Long-term data to support these treatment protocols is limited. Whilst it is possible to treat peri-implantitis, prevention is the goal of supportive therapy.

University teaching of implant dentistry: guidelines for education of dental undergraduate students and general dental practitioners. An Australian consensus document.

Also published as a book chapter: Proceedings of the Australian Consensus Workshop on Implant Dentistry University Education, held on the Gold Coast, Australia 4-6 February 2010: pp.329-332

University postgraduate training in implant dentistry for the general dental practitioner

AIMS OF THIS PAPER: This paper aims to: (1) Describe the educational requirements of general practitioners who want to safely and effectively introduce implant dentistry procedures to their practice. (2) Define the necessary competencies and level of complexity that would need to be attained in a postgraduate implant dentistry programme for general dental practitioners. (3) Discuss the programme structures which universities can utilize in order to provide quality education in implant dentistry for general practitioners. (4) Provide guidelines for the resources, content, course format and instructional methods which could be well suited to the educational requirements of such programmes. The authors intend to produce a headline reference guide to outline the necessary educational structures for postgraduate pathways aimed at facilitating the continuous professional development of general practitioners within implant dentistry. This paper does not address issues concerning specialist training or higher research degrees.