Expression of endothelial adhesion molecules in the alveolar ridge mucosa, gingiva and periimplant mucosa

Zitzmann, Nicola U.; Berglundh, Tord; Marinello, Carlo P; Lindhe, Jan

doi:10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290603.x

Cited by 21 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…24 Moreover, it is concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that any structural differences between natural teeth and implants would significantly alter the host response to bacterial challenge. 6,17,25,26 Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that periimplant mucositis, like gingivitis, is reversible when effectively treated. 6,7 Thus, elimination of the biofilm from the implant surface is the prime objective when treating peri-implant mucositis.…”

Section: Etiologies and Pathogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…28,29 Studies have shown that peri-implantitis and periodontitis lesions from human biopsies have many features in common. 26,30 The connective tissue adjacent to the pocket epithelium is infiltrated by inflammatory cells, with B-lymphocytes and plasma cells being the most dominating cell types. Basically, similar markers are upregulated between periimplantitis and periodontitis, including proinflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-12, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha.…”

Section: Etiologies and Pathogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Academy Report: Peri‐Implant Mucositis and Peri‐Implantitis: A Current Understanding of Their Diagnoses and Clinical Implications

2013

Journal of Periodontology

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Etiologies and Pathogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Etiologies and Pathogenesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Academy Report: Peri‐Implant Mucositis and Peri‐Implantitis: A Current Understanding of Their Diagnoses and Clinical Implications

2013

Journal of Periodontology

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[12][13][14][15] Ancak deneysel gingivitis modelinde, dişetinde oluşan hücresel yanıtın implant çevresi dokularda göz-lenenden daha yoğun olduğunu iddia eden bir çalışma da mecuttur. 16 Oluşan hücresel yanıtın olası yetersizliği, implant çevresi yumuşak dokuların plakla indüklenen enflamatuvar değişim-lere karşı daha büyük risk altında olduğunu düşündürebilir. Toljanic ve ark.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Reliability of periodontal diagnostic methods in the assessment of periimplant health: A comparison of the correlations amongst some clinical parameters

Lütfioğlu¹,

Sakallıoğlu²,

Sert³

et al. 2010

EÜ Dişhek Fak Derg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ÖzetÇalışmada, klinik değerlendirmelerde rutin olarak kullanılan bazı periodontal muayene yöntemlerinin implant çevresi dokulara tanı koymadaki etkinliği, birbirleriyle olan ilişkileri karşılaştırılmak suretiyle incelendi. Diş ve implantlar aynı ağızda, aynı çenede ve simetrik veya aynı diş grubu yerine konulmuş şekilde eşleştirilerek, 54 diş ve implant çalışmaya dahil edildi. Silness-Löe plak indeksi (Pİ), Löe-Silness gingival indeksi (Gİ), sondalamada kanama (SK), cep derinliği (CD), ataşman seviyesi (AS) ve dişeti oluğu sıvısı (DOS)/ implant çevresi oluk sıvısı (İÇOS) hacimleri çalışma değişkenleri olarak değerlendirildi. Diş grubunda Pİ ve Gİ (r=0,634), Pİ ve CD (r=0,577) Pİ ve DOS hacmi (r=0,596); Gİ ve SK (r=0,522), Gİ ve CD (r=0,580), Gİ ve AS (r=0,538), Gİ ve DOS hacmi (r=0,441); SK ve DOS hacmi (r=0,400); CD ve AS (r=0,511) ve CD ve DOS hacmi (r=0,541) arasında pozitif bir ilişkininin varlığı tespit edildi (p<0,05). İmplant grubunda pozitif yöndeki ilişkiler Pİ ve Gİ (r=0,636), Pİ ve SK (r=0,594); Gİ ve SK (r=0,575), Gİ ve İÇOS hacmi (r=0,432); CD ve AS (r=0,837), CD ve İÇOS hacmi (r=0,522) ve AS ve İÇOS hacmi (r=0,516) arasında bulundu (p<0,05). Çalışma bulgularımız, bazı periodontal tanı yöntemleri arasındaki pozitif ilişkilerin, implant çevresi dokularda tanı yöntemi olarak kullanıldıklarında da geçerli olabileceğini göstermektedir. Bu bulgu, implant çevresindeki hastalıkların periodontal hastalıklardakine benzer süreçlerle geliştiği fikrini desteklemektedir. PI and GI, PI and PD, PI and GCF volume; GI and BOP, GI and PD, GI and AL, GI and GCF volume; BOP and GCF volume; PD and AL, PD and GCF volume in the tooth group (p<0.05). The positive correlations were between PI and GI, PI and BOP; GI and BOP, GI and PISF volume; PD and AL, PD and PISF volume; AL and PISF volume in the implant group (p<0.05). These results reveal that the positive correlations amongst some periodontal examination methods may also be valid when they are used as periimplant diagnostics. This finding confirms that implant çevresi diseases resemble the periodontal disease progression processes. Anahtar sözcükler: İmplant çevresi hastalık, tanı yöntemleri Abstract In the study, effectiveness of some periodontal examination methods, which are routinely utilized in the clinical assessments, were evaluated as periimplant diagnostics by comparing the correlations amongst them. Fifty-four implants and teeth that were matched to be in the same mouth, same jaw and symmetrical or correspondingly were included in the study. Silness-Löe plaque index (PI), Löe-Silness gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth (PD), attachment level (AL) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume / (periimplant sulcular fluid (PISF) volume were utilized as the study parameters. There were positive correlations between

show abstract

“…6,7 Peri-implant diseases have been associated with Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, similar to those found around natural teeth in patients with severe chronic periodontitis. 6,7 Peri-implant diseases have been associated with Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, similar to those found around natural teeth in patients with severe chronic periodontitis.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Peri‐implant alveolar bone resorption in an innovative peri‐implantitis murine model: Effect of implant surface and onset of infection

Varon-Shahar

Shusterman

Piattelli

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare the difference in alveolar bone resorption around implants after immediate placement in a bacterial induced experimental periimplantitis murine model. The various conditions that were examined were: Effect of implant surface characteristics and the onset of the induced infection. Materials and Methods: Screw-shaped titanium implants, smooth-surface or sandblasted large-grit acid-etched (SLA) coated, were inserted immediately after extraction of the first upper left molar, in 90 5-6-week-old BALB/c mice. The mice were infected with Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum 21 (early infection) or 42 days (delayed infection) after implantation. Six weeks post infection, bone volume around inserted implants was measured using micro-CT, and was compared to alveolar bone level around teeth. Histological analysis was also performed. Results: The level of bone loss was significantly higher around the implants compared to the teeth, for smooth surface implants the bone loss was higher than of the SLA surface in both control and infected groups with no statistical significance. The survival rate of the implants in immediate infection was 75% compared of the 100% survival of the delayed infection and control mice. There is no significant difference between the early and the delayed infection in alveolar bone loss level around the implants. Conclusions: This model can assist in studying the differences in alveolar bone resorption in different implants and their effect on the development of the disease. K E Y W O R D S compact fan-beam-type computerized tomography, delayed infection experimental periimplantitis, dental titanium implant, murine model, oral mixed infection in mice, SLA coated, smooth surface

show abstract

Expression of endothelial adhesion molecules in the alveolar ridge mucosa, gingiva and periimplant mucosa

Cited by 21 publications

References 19 publications

Academy Report: Peri‐Implant Mucositis and Peri‐Implantitis: A Current Understanding of Their Diagnoses and Clinical Implications

Academy Report: Peri‐Implant Mucositis and Peri‐Implantitis: A Current Understanding of Their Diagnoses and Clinical Implications

Reliability of periodontal diagnostic methods in the assessment of periimplant health: A comparison of the correlations amongst some clinical parameters

Peri‐implant alveolar bone resorption in an innovative peri‐implantitis murine model: Effect of implant surface and onset of infection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About