Both scaling and root planing alone and scaling and root planing combined with flap procedure are effective methods for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in terms of attachment level gain and reduction in gingival inflammation. In the treatment of deep pockets open flap debridement results in greater PPD reduction and clinical attachment gain.

Objectives: To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.Materials and methods: Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra-and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of periimplant bone loss.Results: Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria.At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of periimplantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years.Conclusion: Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period.

Objective This treatment concept paper introduces a risk assessment tool, the Implant Disease Risk Assessment, (IDRA) which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri‐implantitis. Materials and methods The functional risk assessment diagram was constructed incorporating eight parameters, each with documented evidence for an association with peri‐implantitis. Results The eight vectors of the diagram include (1) assessment of a history of periodontitis (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) (3) number of teeth/implants with probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm (4) the ratio of periodontal bone loss (evaluated from a radiograph) divided by the patient's age (5) periodontitis susceptibility as described by the staging and grading categories from the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases (Journal of Periodontology, 89 Suppl 1, S159‐S172, 2018) (6) the frequency/compliance with supportive periodontal therapy (7) the distance in mm from the restorative margin of the implant‐supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest and (8) prosthesis‐related factors including cleanability and fit of the implant‐supported prosthesis. Conclusion The combination of these factors in a risk assessment tool, IDRA, may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for development of peri‐implantitis.

The use of specific post-surgical cleansing protocols including the introduction of mechanical cleansing at day 3, using local application of CHX in addition to daily rinsing with CHX may be recommended.

Greater bone preservation was observed for the AOI and SBLI compared with the NBTI.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of reconstructive peri‐implantitis treatment.Materials and MethodsForty participants, with peri‐implantitis and a contained intraosseous defect, were randomized to access flap (control) or access flap with xenograft and collagen membrane (test). All received systemic antimicrobials. Blinded examiners recorded probing depths (PD), bleeding and suppuration on probing (BOP & SOP), soft tissue levels, and marginal bone levels (MBL) at baseline and 12 months. Patient reported outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was PD change.ResultsAll 40 participants (40 implants) completed the 12‐month study. The mean (standard deviation) PD reduction (deepest site) was 4.2 (1.8) mm in the control and 3.7 (1.9) mm in the test group. MBL gain (deepest site) was 1.7 (1.6) mm in the control and 2.4 (1.4) mm in the test group. Absence of BOP & SOP was observed at 60% of both control and test implants. Buccal recession was 0.9 (1.6) mm in the control and 0.4 (1.1) mm in the test group. A successful outcome (absence of PD ≥ 5 mm with BOP, absence of SOP and absence of progressive bone loss) was achieved for 90% of the control and 85% of test group implants. No statistically significant differences in clinical or radiographic parameters were found between treatment groups. 30% of participants experienced mild gastro‐intestinal disturbances. Reporting followed CONSORT guidelines.ConclusionSimilar clinical and radiographic improvements at 12 months were observed with high levels of patient satisfaction for both the access flap and xenograft covered by collagen membrane groups.Registered clinical trials.gov. ID:NCT03163602 (23/05/2017).