Biological response to peri‐implantitis treatment

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.

Suppuration as diagnostic criterium of peri‐implantitis

“…SUP was not identified in any healthy implant or exhibiting mucositis. This finding supports previous observations 9,12 . In contrast, recent data suggested that SUP can be present in mucositis that display a higher pathogenicity of microbiome compared with non‐SUP mucositis implants 23 .…”

“…Few studies have addressed the prevalence of SUP 8‒10,12 . From a historical perspective, Fransson et al.…”

“…More recently, Bhavsar et al. demonstrated a frequency of 16.7% SUP implants 12 . Preclinical findings have further evidenced the increase in the frequency of SUP as bone loss progresses in a ligature‐induced peri‐implantitis model 13 …”

Peri-Implantitis Diagnosis and Prognosis Using Biomarkers in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid: A Narrative Review

“…IL-4, -8 and -12 showed no differences between health and PID [31]. Chemokines IL-8 and Macrophage inflammatory protein-1α (MIP-1α) were higher in diseased sites [39,40]. However, to our knowledge, these findings were not corroborated by other studies.…”

Biomarker levels in peri‐implant crevicular fluid of healthy implants, untreated and non‐surgically treated implants with peri‐implantitis

“…Alongside with pro‐inflammatory markers and MMP‐8, MIP‐1α/CCL3 is a protein with chemotactic (stimulation of cell migration) properties which plays an important role in inflammation and increased activation of bone resorption cells (osteoclasts). In a study by Petković et al (2010), increased levels of MIP‐1α/CCL3 in PICF of diseased implants were found when compared to healthy implants, whereas no difference between healthy and diseased sites was found for levels of MIP‐1α/CCL3 in a more recent study by Bhavsar et al (2019). In addition to this latter study, our findings also indicate that this marker does not seem to differentiate between peri‐implant health and disease.…”