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.

The current review revealed that only a few studies provided data on the prevalence of peri-implant diseases. Cross-sectional studies on implant-treated subjects are rare and data from only two study samples were available. Peri-implant mucositis occurred in approximately 80% of the subjects and in 50% of the implants. Peri-implantitis was found in 28% and > or =56% of subjects and in 12% and 43% of implant sites.

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co-sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015. An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri-implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus. This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable. The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table 1).

Implant loss was most frequently described (reported in about 100% of studies), while biological complications were considered in only 40-60% and technical complications in only 60-80% of the studies. This observation indicates that data on the incidence of biological and technical complications may be underestimated and should be interpreted with caution.

Background: Peri-implant diseases present in two forms -peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: The literature was systematically searched and critically reviewed. Four manuscripts were produced in specific topics identified as key areas to understand the microbial aetiology and the pathogenesis of peri-implant diseases and how the implant surface structure may affect pathogenesis. Results: While peri-implant mucositis represents the host response of the peri-implant tissues to the bacterial challenge that is not fundamentally different from gingivitis representing the host response to the bacterial challenge in the gingiva, peri-implantitis may differ from periodontitis both in the extent and the composition of cells in the lesion as well as the progression rate. A self-limiting process with a "protective" connective tissue capsule developing appears to dominate the periodontitis lesion while such a process may occasionally be lacking in peri-implantitis lesions. Bacterial biofilm formation on implant surfaces does not differ from that on tooth surfaces, but may be influenced by surface roughness. Nevertheless there is no evidence that such differences may influence the development of peri-implantitis. Conclusion: It was agreed that clinical and radiographic data should routinely be obtained after prosthesis installation on implants in order to establish a baseline for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis during maintenance of implant patients.

In the present animal experiment, analyses and comparisons were made between the structure and composition of clinically healthy supraalveolar soft tissues adjacent to implants and teeth. 5 beagle dogs were used. The right mandibular premolar region was selected in each dog for placement of titanium implants, while the left mandibular premolar region served as control. Extractions of the mandibular premolars were preformed, healing allowed, following which titanium fixtures were installed in the edentolous premolar region. Abutment connection was carried out 3 months later. After another 2 months of healing, plaque control was initiated and maintained for 8 weeks. At the end of the plaque control period, clinical examinations were performed and biopsies harvested from the implant site and the contralateral premolar tooth region. Following fixation and decalcification, all tissue samples were embedded in EPON and examined by histometric and morphometric means. The result from the analyses demonstrated that the periimplant mucosa which formed at titanium implants following abutment connection had many features in common with gingival tissue at teeth. Thus, like the gingiva, the peri-implant mucosa established a cuff-like barrier which adhered to the surface of the titanium abutment. Further, both the gingiva and the peri-implant mucosa had a well-keratinized oral epithelium which was continuous with a junctional epithelium that faced the enamel or the titanium surface. In the periimplant mucosa, the collagen fibers appeared to commence at the marginal bone and were parallel with the abutment surface. All gingival and periimplant units examined were free from infiltrates of inflammatory cells. It was suggested that under the conditions of study, both types of soft tissues, gingiva and periimplant mucosa, have a proper potential to prevent subgingival plaque formation.

The marginal gap that occurred between the metal rod and the bone tissue following implant installation in an extraction socket may predictably heal with new bone formation and defect resolution. The current results further documented that marginal gaps in buccal and palatal/lingual locations were resolved through new bone formation from the inside of the defects and substantial bone resorption from the outside of the ridge.

Osseointegration represents a dynamic process both during its establishment and its maintenance. In the establishment phase, there is a delicate interplay between bone resorption in contact regions (between the titanium body and mineralized bone) and bone formation in 'contact- free' areas. During the maintenance phase, osseointegration is secured through continuous remodeling and adaptation to function.