Titanium and Iron elements were found in soft and hard tissue biopsies retrieved from peri-implantitis sites. Further histologic and immunohistochemical studies need to clarify which specific immune reaction metal elements/particles induce in dental peri-implant tissue.

Peri-implant diseases affecting the surrounding structures of endosseous dental implants include peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. The prevalence of peri-implantitis ranges between 15% and 20% after 10 y, highlighting the major challenge in clinical practice in the rehabilitation of dental implant patients. The widespread nature of peri-implant bone loss poses difficulties in the management of biological complications affecting the long-term success of osseointegrated implant reconstructions. Metal and titanium particles have been detected in peri-implant supporting tissues. However, it remains unclear what mechanisms could be responsible for the elicitation of particle and ion release and whether these released implant-associated materials have a local and/or systemic impact on the peri-implant soft and hard tissues. Metal particle release as a potential etiologic factor has been intensively studied in the field of orthopedics and is known to provoke aseptic loosening around arthroplasties and is associated with implant failures. In dental medicine, emerging information about metal/titanium particle release suggests that the potential impact of biomaterials at the abutment or bone interfaces may have an influence on the pathogenesis of peri-implant bone loss. This mini-review highlights current evidence of metal particle release around dental implants and future areas for research.

Objectives The presence of titanium (Ti) particles around dental implants has been reported in the literature for decades. The prospective presence of Ti debris on soft tissues surrounding dental implants has not been systematically investigated and remains to be explored. Hence, this review aimed to evaluate the origin, presence, characteristics, and location of Ti particles in relation to dental implants. Material and methods Literature searches were conducted by two reviewers independently based on the PRISMA guidelines. The systematic review identified studies on Ti particles derived from dental implants. We evaluated several parameters, including anatomical location, and the suspected methods of Ti particles release. Results The search resulted in 141 articles, of which 26 were eligible and included in the systematic review of the literature. The investigations reported Ti and metal‐like particles in the soft (i.e., epithelial cells, connective tissue, and inflammatory cells) and hard (bone crest and bone marrow) tissues around the dental implants. Shape and size of the particles varied. The current literature reported a size range from 100 nm to 54 µm identified by multiple particles identification methods. Conclusion Ti particles surrounding peri‐implant tissues are a common finding. Peri‐implantitis sites presented a higher number of particles compared to healthy implants. The particles were mostly around the implants and inside epithelial cells, connective tissue, macrophages, and bone. Various mechanisms were described as causes of Ti release, including friction during implant insertion, corrosion of the implant surface, friction at the implant–abutment interface, implantoplasty, and several methods used for implant surface detoxification.

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Material and methods Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched. Results Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11). Conclusions Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.