1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

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.

1)Peri-implantitis is a pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant connective tissue and progressive loss of supporting bone. 2)The histopathologic and clinical conditions leading to the conversion from peri-implant mucositis to peri-implantitis are not completely understood. 3)The onset of peri-implantitis may occur early during follow-up and the disease progresses in a non-linear and accelerating pattern. 4a)Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation and increased probing depths compared to baseline measurements. 4b)At the histologic level, compared to periodontitis sites, peri-implantitis sites often have larger inflammatory lesions. 4c)Surgical entry at peri-implantitis sites often reveals a circumferential pattern of bone loss. 5a)There is strong evidence that there is an increased risk of developing peri-implantitis in patients who have a history of chronic periodontitis, poor plaque control skills, and no regular maintenance care after implant therapy. Data identifying "smoking" and "diabetes" as potential risk factors/indicators for peri-implantitis are inconclusive. 5b)There is some limited evidence linking peri-implantitis to other factors such as: post-restorative presence of submucosal cement, lack of peri-implant keratinized mucosa and positioning of implants that make it difficult to perform oral hygiene and maintenance. 6)Evidence suggests that progressive crestal bone loss around implants in the absence of clinical signs of soft tissue inflammation is a rare event.

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

Objective. The aim of this paper is to review different surface modifications of dental implants and their effect on osseointegration. Common marketed as well as experimental surface modifications are discussed. Discussion. The major challenge for contemporary dental implantologists is to provide oral rehabilitation to patients with healthy bone conditions asking for rapid loading protocols or to patients with quantitatively or qualitatively compromised bone. These charging conditions require advances in implant surface design. The elucidation of bone healing physiology has driven investigators to engineer implant surfaces that closely mimic natural bone characteristics. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of surface modifications that beneficially alter the topography, hydrophilicity, and outer coating of dental implants in order to enhance osseointegration in healthy as well as in compromised bone. In the first part, this paper discusses dental implants that have been successfully used for a number of years focusing on sandblasting, acid-etching, and hydrophilic surface textures. Hereafter, new techniques like Discrete Crystalline Deposition, laser ablation, and surface coatings with proteins, drugs, or growth factors are presented. Conclusion. Major advancements have been made in developing novel surfaces of dental implants. These innovations set the stage for rehabilitating patients with high success and predictable survival rates even in challenging conditions.

The aim of the present study was to compare the biodegradation of differently cross-linked collagen membranes in rats. Five commercially available and three experimental membranes (VN) were included: (1) BioGide (BG) (non-cross-linked porcine type I and III collagens), (2) BioMend (BM), (3) BioMendExtend (BME) (glutaraldehyde cross-linked bovine type I collagen), (4) Ossix (OS) (enzymatic-cross-linked bovine type I collagen), (5) TutoDent (TD) (non-cross-linked bovine type I collagen, and (6-8) VN(1-3) (chemical cross-linked porcine type I and III collagens). Specimens were randomly allocated in unconnected subcutaneous pouches separated surgically on the back of 40 wistar rats, which were divided into five groups (2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks), including eight animals each. After 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks of healing, the rats were sacrificed and explanted specimens were prepared for histologic and histometric analysis. The following parameters were evaluated: biodegradation over time, vascularization, tissue integration, and foreign body reaction. Highest vascularization and tissue integration was noted for BG followed by BM, BME, and VN(1); TD, VN(2), and VN(3) showed prolongated, while OS exhibited no vascularization. Subsequently, biodegradation of BG, BM, BME and VN(1) was faster than TD, VN(2), and VN(3). OS showed only a minute amount of superficial biodegradation 24 weeks following implantation. Biodegradation of TD, BM, BME, VN(2), and VN(3) was associated with the presence of inflammatory cells. Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that cross-linking of bovine and porcine-derived collagen types I and III was associated with (i) prolonged biodegradation, (ii) decreased tissue integration and vascularization, and (iii) in case of TD, BM, BME, VN(2), and VN(3) foreign body reactions.

Within the limitations of this review, it was concluded that soft tissue grafting procedures result in more favorable peri-implant health: (i) for gain of keratinized mucosa using autogenous grafts with a greater improvement of bleeding indices and higher marginal bone levels; (ii) for gain of mucosal thickness using autogenous grafts with significantly less marginal bone loss.

The aim of this controlled, parallel design clinical study was to compare the effectiveness of an Er:YAG laser (ERL) to that of mechanical debridement using plastic curettes and antiseptic therapy for nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Twenty patients with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis lesions were randomly treated with either (1) an ERL using a cone-shaped glass fiber tip at an energy setting of 100 mJ/pulse and 10 pps (ERL), or (2) mechanical debridement using plastic curettes and antiseptic therapy with chlorhexidine digluconate (0.2%) (C). The following clinical parameters were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months after treatment by one blinded and calibrated examiner: Plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR) and clinical attachment level (CAL). At the baseline examination, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the investigated parameters. Mean value of BOP decreased in the ERL group from 83% at baseline to 31% after 6 months (P < 0.001) and in the C group from 80% at baseline to 58% after 6 months (P < 0.001). The difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001, respectively). The sites treated with ERL demonstrated a mean CAL change from 5.8 +/- 1 mm at baseline to 5.1 +/- 1.1 mm (P < 0.01) after 6 months. The C sites demonstrated a mean CAL change from 6.2 +/- 1.5 mm at baseline to 5.6 +/- 1.6 mm (P < 0.001) after 6 months. After 6 months, the difference between the two groups was statistically not significant (P > 0.05). Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that (i) at 6 months following treatment both therapies led to significant improvements of the investigated clinical parameters, and (ii) ERL resulted in a statistically significant higher reduction of BOP than C.