Increased IL-6 Levels in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid Correlate with Peri-Implantitis

Zhang, Yuanyuan; Wang, Cheng; Jinbu, Yoshinori; Itoh, Hiroto; Kusama, Mikio

doi:10.3353/omp.10.95

Cited by 7 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 10 studies that assessed IL‐1β, seven demonstrated higher levels of this cytokine in diseased than in healthy implants, whereas three showed no statistically significant differences between groups. Of the five papers studying IL‐6, two showed no difference in the levels of this biomarker between healthy implants and peri‐implantitis, whereas three reported statistically significantly increased levels in peri‐implantitis.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Two studies evaluated healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis in the same patients. Clear information as to whether or not the healthy and diseased implants were in different patients was not provided in four studies . One study also included data from healthy implants in patients with peri‐implantitis, referred to as “stable implants”, in addition to the evaluation of healthy and diseased implants in different patients.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhang et al . also collected PICF from two sites per implant but did not clarify whether the samples were pooled or not. Murata et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies used paper strips for PICF sampling. One study used microcapillary pipettes, whereas four studies employed paper cones. Data for cytokines were presented as mean concentration per volume of PICF in 11 studies and as total amount in six studies .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…IL‐8). Eleven studies demonstrated that the levels of some proinflammatory cytokines, including IL‐1β, IL‐6, IL‐17 and TNF‐α, were increased in PICF from implants with peri‐implantitis, compared with PICF from healthy implants . On the other hand, the majority of studies reported either no or only minor differences in the levels of anti‐inflammatory cytokines and RANKL in PICF between healthy and diseased implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Could cytokine levels in the peri‐implant crevicular fluid be used to distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis? A systematic review

Duarte

Serrão

Miranda

et al. 2016

J of Periodontal Research

105

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhang et al . also collected PICF from two sites per implant but did not clarify whether the samples were pooled or not. Murata et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Could cytokine levels in the peri‐implant crevicular fluid be used to distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis? A systematic review

Duarte

Serrão

Miranda

et al. 2016

J of Periodontal Research

105

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Use of IL‐1 β, IL‐6, TNF‐α, and MMP‐8 biomarkers to distinguish peri‐implant diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Ghassib

Chen

Zhu

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate the use of peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), IL‐6, tumor necrosis factor‐α (TNF‐α), and matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8) biomarkers in distinguishing between healthy implants (H), peri‐implant mucositis (MU), and peri‐implantitis (PI). Material and Methods Electronic using three databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane) and manual searches were conducted for articles published up to March 2018 by two independent calibrated reviewers. Meta‐analyses using a random‐effects model were conducted for each of the cytokines; IL‐1β, IL‐6, and TNF‐α, to analyze standardized mean difference (SMD) between H and MU, MU and PI, H and PI with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CI). Qualitative assessment of MMP‐8 was provided consequent to the lack of studies that provide valid data for a meta‐analysis. Results Nineteen articles were included in this review. IL‐1β, IL‐6, and TNF‐α, levels were significantly higher in MU than H groups (SMD: 1.94; 95% CI: 0.87, 3.35; P < .001, SMD: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.16, 3.19; P = .031 and SMD: 3.91; 95% CI: 1.13, 6.70; P = .006, respectively). Similar results were obtained with PI compared to H sites (SMD: 2.21, 95% CI: 1.32, 3.11; P < .001, SMD: 1.72; 95% CI: 0.56, 2.87; P = .004 and SMD: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.67, 5.89; P < .001, respectively). IL‐6 was statistically higher in PI than MU sites (SMD = 1.46; 95% CI: 0.36, 2.55; P = .009); while IL‐1ß increase was not significant. Despite absence of meta‐analysis, MMP‐8 show to be a promising biomarker in detection of PI in literature. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, pro‐inflammatory cytokines in PICF, such as IL‐1ß and IL‐6, can be used as adjunct tools to clinical parameters to differentiate H from MU and PI.

show abstract

Peri‐implant crevicular fluid and serum levels of soluble ST2 in peri‐implant diseases: A pilot study

Ozgur

Topçu

Bayraktar

et al. 2022

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective Soluble ST2 (sST2) is a current biomarker of cardiovascular disease. It is used to predict susceptibility to cardiovascular diseases and to analyze their prognosis. Serum sST2 level increases in inflammatory diseases such as periodontitis. However, the level of sST2 in peri‐implant diseases and crevicular fluid has not been investigated yet. Thus, the aim of this cross‐sectional study is to analyze the level of sST2 in peri‐implant health and diseases. Methods Sixty‐nine participants were divided into 3 groups as peri‐implant health (PH), peri‐implant mucositis (PM), and peri‐implantitis (P‐I). Peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) and serum samples were collected from each participant. The levels of sST2 and IL‐6 in PICF and sST2, IL‐6, and CRP in serum were compared between the groups. Pocket depth (PD), modified bleeding index (mBI), modified plaque index (mPI), keratinized mucosa index (KTW), and gingival/mucosal recession (REC) were recorded as clinical parameters. Biomarkers in the serum and PICF were analyzed by ELISA kit. Results Sixty‐nine patients were included in the study. The differences in the following parameters were statistically significant between groups: age (p = .009), implant function time (p = .027), PD (p < .001), mBI (p < .001), mPI (p < .001), and KTW (p = .043). The PICF volume of P‐I and PM groups were statistically higher than PH (p < .001). The amount of sST2 in P‐I and PM groups were higher than PH (p = .043). Serum CRP was higher in the P‐I group than in other groups (p = .034). There were no significant differences in serum sST2 (p = .247) and IL‐6 (p = .110) levels between groups. Conclusion The PICF levels of sST2 were significantly higher in PM and P‐I groups compared to the healthy group. However, no significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of serum sST2 level.

show abstract

Increased IL-6 Levels in Peri-Implant Crevicular Fluid Correlate with Peri-Implantitis

Cited by 7 publications

References 25 publications

Could cytokine levels in the peri‐implant crevicular fluid be used to distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis? A systematic review

Could cytokine levels in the peri‐implant crevicular fluid be used to distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri‐implantitis? A systematic review

Use of IL‐1 β, IL‐6, TNF‐α, and MMP‐8 biomarkers to distinguish peri‐implant diseases: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Peri‐implant crevicular fluid and serum levels of soluble ST2 in peri‐implant diseases: A pilot study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About