Microbiologic and Clinical Findings of Implants in Healthy Condition and with Peri-Implantitis

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

Microbiome and Microbial Biofilm Profiles of Peri‐Implantitis: A Systematic Review

“…Of these, 87 were excluded after review of the title or abstract, and 39 1,9,10,13,14,16‐19,23‐52 full‐text studies were reviewed. Ultimately, 26 studies 9,10,13,14,16‐19,27,36‐52 were included (Table 1), and 13 1,23‐30,32‐35 were excluded for different reasons (12 1,23‐30,33‐35 for not fulfilling the proposed inclusion criteria and one 32 due to its retrospective design). In total, 1,145 patients with 2,134 implants were assessed in the 26 cross‐sectional studies studies 7,9,10,13,14,16‐19,27,36‐46,48‐52 that were included in this review.…”

“…A total of 21 studies comparing microbial profiles of peri‐implantitis and healthy implants were evaluated using different microbiologic methods: two used methods of cultivation, 37,40 two conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), 38,43 three quantitative PCR, 16,17,50 one nested‐PCR, 14 eight DNA hybridization, 9,13,27,36,39,41,42,49 and five DNA sequencing methods 18,19,44,47,51 . The major periodontopathic microorganisms (red complex: Porphyromonas gingivalis [ Pg ], Tannerella forsythia [ Tf ], and Treponema denticola [ Td ]; orange complex: Prevotella intermedia [ Pi ] and Fusobacterium nucleatum [ Fn ]; and other microorganisms: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans [ Aa ], Eikenella corrodens [ Ec ], Parvimonas micra [ Pm ], and Campylobacter rectus [ Cr ]) were identified in 11 of 21 studies (52.3%) 9,14,16,17,37,39,40,43,49,50,52 . Three studies also evaluated opportunistic microorganisms 37,40,52 .…”

“…Despite the presence of periodontopathic microorganisms in peri‐implantitis sites, some studies did not find differences in frequencies between healthy sites and peri‐implant disease 9,13,14 . Observational studies 9,14‐17 assessing colonization of microorganisms around dental implants have suggested that these microorganisms could colonize the peri‐implant sulcus of healthy implants in patients with periodontal disease. Other controversial results are related to the methodologic design of studies: studies of microbiologic profiles of peri‐implant biofilms at healthy and diseased sites in the same individual differ from studies with parallel design 16,17 …”

Microbial Profiles and Detection Techniques in Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review

“…Others did find differences for A.a., P. gingivalis , Tannerella forsythia , T. denticola [51], Fusobacterium nucleatum , P. intermedia , Peptostreptococcus micros , Campylobacter rectus , Eikenella corrodens , Candida albicans , Prevotella nigrescens , Centruroides gracilis , Capnocytophaga ochracea , Campylobacter concisus , Streptococcus spp. , Actinomyces odontolyticus , Veillonella parvula and Enterococcus faecali s [52,53]. …”

Surface property alterations and osteoblast attachment to contaminated titanium surfaces after different surface treatments: An in vitro study

“…34 Treatment of periimplantitis includes non-surgical methods, such as using antiseptics, antibiotics, and laser or titanium curette surface debridement, whereas surgical techniques involve resective and regenerative surgery. 42,43 Therefore, the goal of treatment is to remove infection sources. Bacterial infection and LPS deposition are considered the main factors for peri-implant infections.…”