Maintenance of Implant Patients

Kelekis‐Cholakis, Anastasia; Rothney, Janet

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000837

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The answers to the questions are based on four position papers [8][9][10][11] presented at the FDI consensus meeting on peri-implantitis in May 2018. The answers to the questions are based on four position papers [8][9][10][11] presented at the FDI consensus meeting on peri-implantitis in May 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The task of this working group was to answer critical questions related to the diagnosis of peri-implant health and disease, the treatment planning and nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases, and maintenance care of patients supported with dental implants. The answers to the questions are based on four position papers [8][9][10][11] presented at the FDI consensus meeting on peri-implantitis in May 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The fourth position paper focused on maintenance therapy of patients supported with dental implants 11 . It was concluded that patient compliance with the recommended peri-implant maintenance regimen is essential in the prevention of biological complications, and that compliers had fewer peri-implantitis conditions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases and maintenance care of patients with dental implants – Consensus report of working group 3

Renvert

Hirooka

Polyzois

et al. 2019

International Dental Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following consensus report is based on four background reviews. The frequency of maintenance visits is based on patient risk indicators, homecare compliance and prosthetic design. Generally, a 6‐month visit interval or shorter is preferred. At these visits, peri‐implant probing, assessment of bleeding on probing and, if warranted, a radiographic examination is performed. Diagnosis of peri‐implant mucositis requires: (i) bleeding or suppuration on gentle probing with or without increased probing depth compared with previous examinations; and (ii) no bone loss beyond crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodelling. Diagnosis of peri‐implantitis requires: (i) bleeding and/or suppuration on gentle probing; (ii) an increased probing depth compared with previous examinations; and (iii) bone loss beyond crestal bone level changes resulting from initial bone remodelling. If diagnosis of disease is established, the inflammation should be resolved. Non‐surgical therapy is always the first choice. Access and motivation for optimal oral hygiene are key. The patient should have a course of mechanical therapy and, if a smoker, be encouraged not to smoke. Non‐surgical mechanical therapy and oral hygiene reinforcement are useful in treating peri‐implant mucositis. Power‐driven subgingival air‐polishing devices, Er: YAG lasers, metal curettes or ultrasonic curettes with or without plastic sleeves can be used to treat peri‐implantitis. Such treatment usually provides clinical improvements such as reduced bleeding tendency, and in some cases a pocket‐depth reduction of ≤ 1 mm. In advanced cases, however, complete resolution of the disease is unlikely.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases and maintenance care of patients with dental implants – Consensus report of working group 3

Renvert

Hirooka

Polyzois

et al. 2019

International Dental Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, individual variations in how each person's body reacts to implants can also play a role in the differences observed in GCF composition. These findings highlight the importance of monitoring GCF levels on both sides of a dental implant to ensure optimal oral health [32][33][34][35][36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Despite the increasing use of Zirconia crowns in implant dentistry, there is very limited information available on how to properly maintain it. This lack of information could potentially lead to complications and failures in the long-term use of Zirconia crowns [32]. It is important for dental professionals to be aware of this limitation and to continue researching and studying the proper maintenance techniques for this material.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An In Vivo Investigation of Non-Metallic vs. Metallic Hand Scalers on Zirconia Implant-Supported Crowns: A Year-Long Analysis of Peri-Implant Maintenance

Roemermann,

Atout,

Pesun

et al. 2023

JFB

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether the degree of abutment surface modification that may occur with regular periodontal instrumentation has a clinical impact in terms of increased plaque accumulation and increased peri-implant tissue inflammation on zirconia implant abutments. Thirteen patients who had zirconia implant crowns were recruited in this randomized clinical trial. Each patient acted as their control and had either the buccal or lingual surface of their screw-retained implant restoration scaled with a metallic scaler and the other surface with a non-metallic scaler at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Cytokine testing of the peri-implant crevicular fluid was completed at 0, 3, and 12 months for IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, TNF-α, or IFNγ. Implant crowns were removed at 12 months and evaluated under an atomic force microscope for the average roughness (Ra). The implant crowns were polished and re-inserted. The results were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test, and post hoc tests were conducted with a significance level of α = 0.05. Significant differences in surface roughness (Ra) were observed between the metallic and non-metallic scalers. The median Ra values were 274.0 nm for metallic scalers and 147.1 nm for non-metallic scalers. However, there were no significant differences between the type of scaler used and the amount of clinical inflammation or cytokine production. Metallic scalers produced deeper, more aggressive surface alterations to the abutment/crown zirconia surface, but there was no statistically significant difference between the degree of surface alterations, amount of BOP, and the amplitude of cytokine inflammation produced.

show abstract