Antimicrobial dental implant functionalization strategies —A systematic review

Grischke, Jasmin; Eberhard, Jörg; Stiesch, Meike

doi:10.4012/dmj.2015-314

Cited by 71 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 179 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dental implants perforate the mucosa and are continually exposed to oral microflora. Oral bacteria colonize dental implant surfaces and may form pathogenic biofilms . Even though the infectious nature of peri‐implant diseases is well accepted, their etiology is multifactorial and some patients seem to be at higher risk than others are .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

303

280

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

303

280

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, the third approach consists of treating the implant surface with a coating containing cytotoxic compounds that induce the death of nearby bacteria or adhered bacteria. Various functional modifications of implant surfaces have been suggested, for example, coatings loaded with antibiotics, organic nonantibiotic antimicrobial coatings, and inorganic nonantibiotic antimicrobial coatings. Most of these studies have been carried out with titanium implants/surfaces, considered to be the gold standard in oral implantology.…”

Section: Peri‐implantitis Prevention: Antimicrobial Coatingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inorganic coatings have emerged as an alternative approach since they have not yet been associated with resistant organisms . Inorganic antimicrobial materials have several advantages compared to traditional organic agents, which include chemical stability, thermal resistance, and protracted action …”

Section: Peri‐implantitis Prevention: Antimicrobial Coatingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…94 The most effective strategy to combat peri-implantitis would be the prevention of biofilm formation on the implant surface. 95 Osseointegration and prolonged implant success rate can be enhanced by modifying and reactivating the implant surface to make it osteoinductive and antibacterial. Three general strategies are used for antimicrobial surface design.…”

Section: Peri-implantitis Prevention: Antimicrobial Coatingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Current state‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives of the three main modern implant‐dentistry concerns: Aesthetic requirements, mechanical properties, and peri‐implantitis prevention

López‐Píriz

Cabal

Goyos‐Ball³

et al. 2019

J Biomedical Materials Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The idea of permanent tooth replacement goes back to the year 2000 BC at least, when carved bamboo pegs were used to replace missing teeth in ancient China. The phenomenon of osseointegration, however, was not verified until the mid‐1960s, when Branemark discovered that titanium could integrate to bone. Since then, the osseointegration capacity of implants has been profoundly investigated and implants as such have evolved enormously in all possible aspects, from material selection and processing to specific surface engineering, among many others. This review article, in particular, focuses on dental implants and aims to introduce the main concerns involved in modern dentistry, concentrating especially on the importance of finding an effective way to prevent peri‐implantitis. In this sense, strategies such as shifting from metal to ceramic implant components and applying novel antimicrobial antibiotic‐free coatings seem to be taking the lead. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A, 2019.

show abstract

“…It is assumed that the risk indicators involved in the pathogenesis of periodontal disease also contribute to peri‐implant infections . The primary etiology is the colonization of the oral bacteria to form pathogenic biofilm at the implant‐abutment interface . However, various systemic conditions may negatively affect the predictability of dental implant outcomes leading to peri‐implant inflammation, peri‐implant bone destruction and, eventually, implant failure and loss .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical indices and local levels of inflammatory biomarkers in per‐implant health of obese and nonobese individuals

Alasqah

Al‐Shibani

Al‐Aali

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Obesity seem to regulate peri‐implant health. It is proposed that peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) levels of interleukin (IL)‐1β and IL‐6 are higher in obese as compared to nonobese individuals. Objective The purpose of the present clinico‐laboratory study is to estimate and compare the clinical and radiographic indices and PICF levels of IL‐1β and IL‐6 among obese and nonobese patients. Materials and Methods Fifty patients were divided into two groups (25 obese with ≥27.5 kg/m2 and 25 nonobese with <27.5 kg/m2 individuals). Clinical indices for both periodontal and peri‐implant evaluating plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and crestal bone loss (CBL) were recorded around teeth and implants. PICF was collected and assessed for the levels of IL‐1β and IL‐6 using enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Results A significant difference was observed in PI and BOP around natural teeth and implants in obese patients, respectively (P < .05). CBL was found to be significantly higher among obese as compared to nonobese patients (P = .022). Peri‐implant and periodontal PD was higher in obese as compared to nonobese but did not reach statistical significance. Levels of IL‐1β and IL‐6 were statistically significantly higher among obese patients as compared to nonobese (P = .001). Pearson correlation analysis showed IL‐1β was positively correlated with CBL (P = .0079), whereas IL‐6 showed positive correlation with both BOP (P = .0019) and CBL (P = .015) among obese patients. Conclusions Clinical peri‐implant parameters were worse and proinflammatory biomarkers were significantly higher in obese patients compared with nonobese subjects. The findings of the present study suggests that increased proinflammatory biomarkers in PICF of obese patients may modulate peri‐implant inflammation around dental implants.

show abstract

Antimicrobial dental implant functionalization strategies —A systematic review

Cited by 71 publications

References 179 publications

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Current state‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives of the three main modern implant‐dentistry concerns: Aesthetic requirements, mechanical properties, and peri‐implantitis prevention

Clinical indices and local levels of inflammatory biomarkers in per‐implant health of obese and nonobese individuals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About