A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Future studies on the epidemiology of peri-implant diseases should consider (i) applying consistent case definitions and (ii) assessing random patient samples of adequate size and function time.

A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease affecting soft and hard tissues surrounding dental implants. As the global number of individuals that undergo restorative therapy through dental implants increases, peri-implantitis is considered as a major and growing problem in dentistry. A randomly selected sample of 588 patients who all had received implant-supported therapy 9 y earlier was clinically and radiographically examined. Prevalence of peri-implantitis was assessed and risk indicators were identified by multilevel regression analysis. Forty-five percent of all patients presented with peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >0.5 mm). Moderate/severe peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >2 mm) was diagnosed in 14.5%. Patients with periodontitis and with ≥4 implants, as well as implants of certain brands and prosthetic therapy delivered by general practitioners, exhibited higher odds ratios for moderate/severe peri-implantitis. Similarly, higher odds ratios were identified for implants installed in the mandible and with crown restoration margins positioned ≤1.5 mm from the crestal bone at baseline. It is suggested that peri-implantitis is a common condition and that several patient- and implant-related factors influence the risk for moderate/severe peri-implantitis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825772).

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

Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of (i) a single session of “full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement” (Fm‐UD) as an initial periodontal treatment approach and (ii) re‐instrumentation of periodontal pockets not properly responding to initial subgingival instrumentation. Methods: Forty‐one patients, having on the average 35 periodontal sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) 5 mm, were randomly assigned to two different treatment protocols following stratification for smoking : a single session of full‐mouth subgingival instrumentation using a piezoceramic ultrasonic device (EMS PiezonMaster 400, A+PerioSlim tips) with water coolant (Fm‐UD) or quadrant scaling/root planing (Q‐SRP) with hand instruments . At 3 months, all sites with remaining PPD5 mm were subjected to repeated debridement with either the ultrasonic device or hand instruments. Plaque, PPD, relative attachment level (RAL) and bleeding following pocket probing (BoP) were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Primary efficacy variables were percentage of “closed pockets” (PPD4 mm), and changes in BoP, PPD and RAL. Results: The percentage of “closed pockets” was 58% at 3 months for the Fm‐UD approach and 66% for the Q‐SRP approach (p>0.05). Both treatment groups showed a mean reduction in PPD of 1.8 mm, while the mean RAL gain amounted to 1.3 mm for Fm‐UD and 1.2 mm for Q‐SRP (p>0.05). The re‐treatment at 3 months resulted in a further mean PPD reduction of 0.4 mm and RAL gain of 0.3 mm at 6 months, independent of the use of ultrasonic or hand instruments. The efficiency of the initial treatment phase (time used for instrumentation/number of pockets closed) was significantly higher for the Fm‐UD than the Q‐SRP approach: 3.3 versus 8.8 min. per closed pocket (p<0.01). The efficiency of the re‐treatment session at 3 months was 11.5 min. for ultrasonic and 12.6 min. for hand instrumentation (p>0.05). Conclusion: The results demonstrated that a single session of Fm‐UD is a justified initial treatment approach that offers tangible benefits for the chronic periodontitis patient.

Clinicians must consider the thickness of the buccal bony wall in the extraction site and the vertical as well as the horizontal positioning of the implant in the socket, because these factors will influence hard tissue changes during healing.

No abstract