Clinical, Microbiological, and Biochemical Impact of the Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis—A Prospective Case Series

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study, a prospective case series, was to evaluate the clinical, microbiological, and biochemical impact of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Methods: Thirty subjects with diagnosis of peri-implantitis were treated following a surgical protocol including access flaps, surface decontamination with ultrasonics and glycine powder air-polishing, and systemic antibiotics. Disease resolution was defined by the composite outcome including presence of probing depths (PD) ≤5 mm, absence of bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration, and no additional radiographic bone loss (>1 mm). Regression analysis was used to evaluate the patient-, implant-, and prosthetic-related factors possibly influencing treatment outcomes. Results: Patients were evaluated at 6 months post treatment, demonstrating statistically significant reductions in PD (2.14 ± 1.07 mm) and increase in mucosal recession (1.0 ± 0.77 mm). Plaque, BoP, and suppuration were also reduced by 40.56%, 62.22%, and 7.78%, respectively. Disease resolution was achieved in 56.67% of patients. No significant changes were detected in microbiological parameters except for a significant reduction in proportions of Parvimonas micra. Similarly, the levels of the biomarker interleukin-8 in crevicular fluid were significantly lower at 6 months. Conclusions: The proposed surgical treatment of peri-implantitis demonstrated statistically significant clinical improvements although the impact on microbiological and biochemical parameters was scarce.

An Experimental Anodized Titanium Surface for Transgingival Dental Implant Elements—Preliminary Report

“…Therefore, minimally invasive procedures have been introduced to increase patient post-surgical comfort by atraumatic acts [ 22 , 23 ]. Consequently, many new surgical and nonsurgical treatment methods for peri-implantitis management have been described; some demonstrated statistically significant clinical improvements, although the impacts on microbiological and biochemical parameters are still insufficient [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 ]. Therefore, primary prophylaxis of peri-implant diseases is important and can be achieved with correct treatment planning in terms of implant position, the morphologies of soft tissues surrounding the implant, and the proper prosthetic reconstruction [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ].…”

Clinical, microbiological and biochemical impact of a supportive care protocol with an air‐polishing device, after surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: Randomized clinical trial

“…Patients were excluded if their periodontal condition was not adequately controlled or if the affected implant presented a vertical peri‐implant defect. Details on the study population and the peri‐implantitis surgical protocol rendered have been previously reported, as well as the 6‐month treatment outcomes (Luengo, Solonko, et al, 2022). In brief, after a pre‐surgical session of standardized oral hygiene instructions (OHI) and non‐surgical instrumentation, patients were treated with a surgical procedure based on access flap and decontamination of the implant surface combining curettes, ultrasonic tips and an air‐polishing device with glycine powder.…”

“…The sample size calculation was first calculated for the prospective case series (Luengo, Solonko, et al, 2022) based on detecting a desired inter‐group difference of 0.99 mm and a standard deviation (SD) of 0.8 mm in the primary outcome (PD) (Renvert et al, 2008). This resulted in a sample size of 25 subjects, with an α of 0.05 and a power of 99%.…”

Reconstructive Peri-Implantitis Therapy by Using Bovine Bone Substitute with or without Hyaluronic Acid: A Randomized Clinical Controlled Pilot Study

“…Open flap debridement and resective surgical peri-implantitis approaches demonstrated the improvement of the implant surface decontamination with a significant reduction in inflammatory signs such as bleeding on probing (BOP) and suppuration (SUP) along with decrease in peri-implant pocket depth (PPD) [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In spite of that, these methods did not achieve complete disease remission [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ], resulting in different levels of treatment failure or implant loss (20–60%) in the short-term basis. As a result, the treated implant sites remain meagre in the original supporting bone structure causing the reduction of previously achieved implant stability.…”