No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objective To investigate biological markers of peri‐implantitis (PIP) in crevicular fluid before and after surgical and antimicrobial therapy. Material and Methods Forty‐eight participants (24 healthy implants and 24 PIP) were clinically evaluated, and peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected at baseline for both groups, and at 3‐months after surgical and antimicrobial treatment (ie, n = 21 PIP completers). Samples were analyzed for interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8), and macrophage inflammatory protein‐1α (MIP‐1α) using immunoassay and the results compared between groups. Results Peri‐implantitis sites at baseline demonstrated significantly higher mean periodontal probing depths, percentage bleeding on probing (P ≤ 0.001), and mean IL‐1β concentration in PICF compared to healthy implant sites (17.9 vs 1.7 pg/μL; P = 0.02). Three months after treatment, periodontal probing depths, bleeding on probing, suppuration (P < 0.05), and the mean concentration of MMP‐8 decreased significantly compared with baseline (12.1 vs 6.7 ng/μL, P = 0.04). MIP‐1α concentrations showed no differences between the groups. Conclusion Elevated concentrations of IL‐1β in PICF were consistent with PIP. A decrease in MMP‐8 concentration in PICF at three months after treatment is consistent with a healing biological response.

No abstract

The aim of the current study was to elucidate whether there is an association between selected risk factors and implant failure, as determined by patient-reported outcomes. A trained clinician administered a formal survey questionnaire to 415 patients who had received a total of 963 implants through the University of Kentucky College of Dentistry's implant training program. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information about potential risk factors that may affect implant failure. Patients were also asked to rate their satisfaction with the appearance and function of the implant, their surgical experience, and the levels of pain and mobility associated with the implant(s). Both patient-level and implant-level data were analyzed in this study. Multiple logistic regression analysis at the patient level indicated that the following variables did not contribute to the success or failure of the implants: sex, smoking status, diabetes, osteoporosis, and use of bisphosphonates. When the statistical analyses controlled for these variables, the odds of patient-reported implant failure increased with the patient's age (by 15% every 5 years). The results of implant-level analyses adjusted for smoking status, diabetes, and osteoporosis showed that the patient's age (odds of failure increased by 12% every 5 years) and no use of bisphosphonates (odds ratio, 9.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.849, 45.975) were significantly associated with poor implant outcome. Our findings suggest a possible association between implant failure and the patient's age and use of bisphosphonates.

This report highlights the plausible placement of a different size dental implant in the same area of previous-implant-induced nerve injury. The authors report that a lack of postoperative radiograph by the surgeon was considered to be a procedural failure.