Interventions for peri‐implantitis and their effects on further bone loss: A retrospective analysis of a registry‐based cohort

Abstract

Objective The aim of the present study was to assess interventions and their consequences with regard to further bone loss at sites diagnosed with peri‐implantitis. Materials and Methods In 2017, records of 70 patients diagnosed with moderate/severe peri‐implantitis at ≥1 implant sites 4 years earlier were obtained. Changes of marginal bone levels during the study period assessed on radiographs and predictors of disease progression were identified by Cox regression and mixed linear modelling. Patient files were analysed for professional interventions related to the treatment of peri‐implantitis. Results Mean bone loss (±SD) at implants diagnosed with moderate/severe peri‐implantitis was 1.1 ± 2.0 mm over the observation period of 3.3 years. While non‐surgical measures including submucosal and/or supra‐mucosal cleaning of implants were provided to almost all patients, surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis was limited to a subgroup (17 subjects). Surgically treated implant sites demonstrated a mean bone loss of 1.4 ± 2.4 mm prior to surgical intervention, while only minor changes (0.2 ± 1.0 mm) occurred after therapy. Clinical parameters (bleeding/suppuration on probing and probing depth) assessed at diagnosis were statistically significant predictors of disease progression. Conclusions Non‐surgical procedures were insufficient to prevent further bone loss at implant sites affected by moderate/severe peri‐implantitis. Surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis markedly diminished the progression of bone loss. Clinical assessments of bleeding on probing and probing depth at diagnosis predicted further bone loss.

Short‐term comparison of two non‐surgical treatment modalities of peri‐implantitis: Clinical and microbiological outcomes in a two‐factorial randomized controlled trial

“…Presence of at least one screw-type titanium implant exhibiting signs of peri-implantitis: maximum probing depth from 5 to 8 mm, bleeding on probing or suppuration, and radiographic bone loss beyond crestal bone-level changes resulting from initial bone remodelling affected by moderate/severe peri-implantitis in the presence of BoP and bone loss >2 mm (group C) (Karlsson et al, 2019).…”

Implant Disease Risk Assessment IDRA–a tool for preventing peri‐implant disease

“…Further evidence of BOP % (ranging between 20%–30%) determining a higher risk for periodontal disease progression was demonstrated in a number of studies (Badersten, Nilveus, & Egelberg, ; Claffey, Nylund, Kiger, Garrett, & Egelberg, ; Matuliene et al, ). Bleeding on probing at implant sites was also shown to be associated with disease progression (Karlsson et al, ; Luterbacher, Mayfield, Brägger, & Lang, ; Giovanni Serino & Turri, ). The percentage of BOP is, therefore, used as a second risk indicator in the IDRA functional diagram.…”

Influence of keratinized mucosa on the surgical therapeutical outcomes of peri‐implantitis

“…This study is the first to investigate the impact of KM width on peri-implantitis therapeutic outcomes. Recent clinical trials concurred that non-surgical treatments are often insufficient in preventing further bone loss at peri-implantitis sites, and that only surgical approaches significantly diminish the progression of bone loss (Faggion, Listl, Fruhauf, Chang, & Tu, 2014;Karlsson et al, 2019). It is also safe to assume that surgical interventions are best reserved for moderate and advanced peri-implantitis cases (Aljateeli, Fu, & Wang, 2012;Esposito, Grusovin, & Worthington, 2012).…”