Aims: Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are -in contrast to periodontitis -at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis. Methods: Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants. Results: Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive

Lateral ridge augmentation procedures are aimed to reconstruct deficient alveolar ridges or to build up peri-implant dehiscence and fenestrations. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of these interventions by analyzing data from 40 clinical studies evaluating bone augmentation through either the staged or the simultaneous approach. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guideline for systematic reviews was used. The primary outcomes were the changes at reentry, in the ridge width, and in the vertical and horizontal dimensions of the peri-implant defect, measured in millimeters, in the staged and simultaneous approaches, respectively. The results of the meta-analysis showed, for the simultaneous approach, a statistically significant defect height reduction when all treatments were analyzed together (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -4.28 mm; 95% confidence interval: [CI] -4.88, -3.69; P < 0.01). The intervention combining bone replacement grafts with barrier membranes was associated with superior outcomes The most frequently used intervention was the combination of xenograft and bioabsorbable membrane. Similarly, for the staged approach, there was a statistically significant horizontal gain when all treatment groups were combined (WMD = 3.90 mm; 95% CI: 3.52, 4.28; P < 0.001). The most frequently used intervention was the use of autogenous bone blocks. Both treatment strategies led to high survival and success rates (>95%) for the implants placed on the regenerated sites. Nonexposed sites gained significantly more in the simultaneous and staged approaches (WMD = 1.1 and 3.1 mm).

Tenuta LMA, van der Veen MH, Machiulskiene V. Prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at individual and population level: consensus report of group 3 of joint EFP/ORCA workshop on the boundaries between caries and periodontal diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2017; 44 (Suppl. 18): S85-S93. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12687. AbstractBackground: The non-communicable diseases dental caries and periodontal diseases pose an enormous burden on mankind. The dental biofilm is a major biological determinant common to the development of both diseases, and they share common risk factors and social determinants, important for their prevention and control. The remit of this working group was to review the current state of knowledge on epidemiology, socio-behavioural aspects as well as plaque control with regard to dental caries and periodontal diseases. Methods: Discussions were informed by three systematic reviews on (i) the global burden of dental caries and periodontitis; (ii) socio-behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at an individual and population level; and (iii) mechanical and chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and dental caries. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on expert opinion of the participants.

There is a paucity of data for the effectiveness of reconstructive procedures in the treatment of peri-implantitis. The objective of this study was to compare reconstruction of peri-implant osseous defects with open flap debridement (OFD) plus porous titanium granules (PTGs) compared with OFD alone. Sixty-three patients (36 female, 27 male; mean age 58.4 y [SD 12.3]), contributing one circumferential peri-implant intraosseous defect, were included in a multinational, multicenter randomized trial using a parallel-group design. After OFD and surface decontamination using titanium brushes and hydrogen peroxide, 33 defects received PTGs. The implants were not submerged. All patients received adjunctive perioperative systemic antibiotics. The primary outcome variable (defect fill) was assessed on digitalized radiographs. Clinical measurements of probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), suppuration, and plaque were taken by blinded examiners. After 12 mo, the test group (OFD plus PTG) showed a mean radiographic defect fill (mesial/distal) of 3.6/3.6 mm compared with 1.1/1.0 in the control group (OFD). Differences were statistically significant in favor of the test group (P < 0.0001). The OFD plus PTG group showed a mean reduction in PPD of 2.8 mm compared with 2.6 mm in the OFD group. BoP was reduced from 89.4% to 33.3% and from 85.8% to 40.4% for the test and control groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in complete resolution of peri-implantitis (PPD ≤4 mm and no BoP at six implant sites and no further bone loss), because this finding was accomplished at 30% of implants in the test group and 23% of implants in the control group. Reconstructive surgery using PTGs resulted in significantly enhanced radiographic defect fill compared with OFD. However, limitations in the lack of ability to discern biomaterial from osseous tissue could not be verified to determine new bone formation. Similar improvements according to clinical measures were obtained after both surgical treatment modalities (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02406001).

Background and Aims Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. Material and Methods The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri‐implantitis associated defects, and long‐term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. Results A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta‐analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. Conclusions The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post‐operative complications.

Objectives The present systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy of reconstructive surgical therapy at peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects. Methods Studies reporting on outcomes of reconstructive surgery at peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects at 12 months were identified through an electronic search. Following data extraction, two different sets of meta‐analyses were performed. Primarily, controlled studies were used to evaluate the potential benefit of reconstructive surgical therapy over controls. Secondly, overall outcome of reconstructive surgical therapy was assessed by comparing baseline values with outcomes at 12 months. Results were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) or risk ratios (RR). Heterogeneity was described by I2 and prediction intervals. Results The potential benefit of reconstructive techniques over control procedures was evaluated in three studies, representing a total of 116 implants. Altogether, 16 studies reported on the outcome of reconstructive measures at 12 months after surgery. The meta‐analyses identified a larger improvement in marginal bone levels (MBL, WMD = 1.7 mm) and in defect fill (WMD = 57%) for test procedures, but found no differences for clinical measures (reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Changes of clinical attachment and soft tissue levels were not considered. In terms of overall outcome, therapy resulted in improved MBL (WMD = 2.0 mm) and CAL (WMD = 1.8 mm), in recession (WMD = 0.7 mm), in reduced PD (WMD = 2.8 mm) and in reduced BOP (Implants: RR = 0.4/Sites: RR = 0.2). None of the included studies addressed patient‐reported outcome measures. Conclusions The available evidence on reconstructive therapy at peri‐implantitis‐related defects is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies, (b) the lack of controlled studies for commonly used procedures, (c) the heterogeneity between studies and (d) the choice of outcome measures. A high variability for predicted outcomes at 12 months was noted. The interpretation of the demonstrated larger MBL gain for test procedures is difficult as graft material may not be distinguishable from newly formed bone. Potential aesthetic and patient‐reported advantages remain to be demonstrated.

Objective To evaluate the potential benefit of the use of a bone substitute material in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis. Methods In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, 138 patients (147 implants) with peri‐implantitis were treated surgically, randomized by coin toss to either a control (access flap surgery) or a test group (reconstructive surgery using bone substitute material). Clinical assessments, including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP) as well as soft tissue recession (REC), were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Marginal bone levels (MBL), measured on intra‐oral radiographs, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded at baseline and 12 months. No blinding to group allocation was performed. The primary outcome at 12 months was a composite measure including (i) implant not lost, (ii) absence of BOP/SOP at all aspects, (iii) PPD ≤5 mm at all aspects and (iv) ≤1 mm recession of mucosal margin on the buccal aspect of the implant. Secondary outcomes included (i) changes of MBL, (ii) changes of PPD, BOP%, and buccal KM, (iii) buccal REC and (iv) patient‐reported outcomes. Results During follow‐up, four implants (one in the test group, three in the control group) in four patients were removed due to disease progression. At 12 months, a total of 69 implants in the test and 68 implants in the control group were examined. Thus, 16.4% and 13.5% of implants in the test and control group, respectively, met all predefined criteria of the composite outcome. PPD reduction and MBL gain were 3.7 mm and about 1.0 mm in both groups. Reduction in mean BOP% varied between 45% (test) and 50% (control), without significant differences between groups. Buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group (M = 0.7, SD = 0.9 mm) when compared to controls (M = 1.1, SD = 1.5 mm). PROs were favorable in both groups without significant differences. One case of allergic reaction to the antibiotic therapy was recorded. No other adverse events were noted. Conclusions Surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis effectively improved the clinical and radiographic status at 12 months. While the use of a bone substitute material did not improve reductions of PPD and BOP, buccal REC was less pronounced in the test group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups.

Objectives: To evaluate the performance and safety of placing a collagenated xenogeneic bone block (CXBB) graft for the lateral bone augmentation of the alveolar crest prior to implant placement.