Bone regeneration as treatment of peri‐implant disease: A narrative review

Abstract

Introduction Analysis of the 3‐dimensional implant position, the bone defect morphology, and the soft tissue situation guides the decision to preserve or to remove an implant with a severe peri‐implantitis lesion. The aim of this narrative review was to analyze and to comprehensively illustrate the treatment options focusing on peri‐implant bone regeneration in presence of severe peri‐implant bone loss. Methods A database search was performed independently by the two reviewers to identify case reports, case series, cohort, retrospective, and prospective studies about peri‐implant bone regeneration with a follow‐up of at least 6 months. Of the 344 studies issued during the database analysis, 96 publications were selected by the authors for this review. Results Deproteinized bovine bone mineral remains the best documented material for defect regeneration in peri‐implantitis in combination with or without a barrier membrane. While studies using autogenous bone in peri‐implantitis therapy are rarely found, they do report favorable potential of vertical bone regeneration. Moreover, while membranes are an inherent part of the guided bone regeneration, a 5‐year follow‐up study demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements with and without a membrane. The administration of systemic antibiotics is frequently performed in clinical studies observing regenerative surgical peri‐implantitis therapy, but the analysis of the literature does not support a positive effect of this medication. Most studies for regenerative peri‐implantitis surgery recommend the removal of the prosthetic rehabilitation and the use a marginal incision with a full‐thickness access flap elevation. This allows for a good overview for regenerative procedures with a certain risk of wound dehiscences and incomplete regeneration. An alternative approach referring to the poncho technique may reduce the risk of dehiscence. The effectiveness of implant surface decontamination might have an impact on peri‐implant bone regeneration without any clinical superiority of a certain technique. Conclusion The available literature reveals that the success of peri‐implantitis therapy is limited to the reduction of bleeding on probing, the improvement of the peri‐implant probing depth and a small amount of vertical defect fill. On this basis, no specific recommendations for bone regeneration in surgical peri‐implantitis therapy can be made. Innovative approaches for flap design, surface decontamination, bone defect grafting material, and soft tissue augmentation should be followed closely to find advanced techniques for favorable peri‐implant bone augmentation.