Peri‐implant crevicular fluid biomarkers as discriminants of peri‐implant health and disease

Zani, Sabrina Rebollo; Moss, Kevin; Shibli, Jamil Awad; Teixeira, Eduardo Rolim; Mairink, Renata; Onuma, Tatiana; Feres, Magda; Teles, Ricardo

doi:10.1111/jcpe.12586

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Inflammation in the peri‐implant tissues may be latent in the early stages and not readily detected by clinical measures. Therefore, PICF analysis might provide valuable information for the early diagnosis of inflammatory changes and might even serve as a tool for determination of patient susceptibility . Although differences were observed with the control site measurements at 3 and 6 months, particularly for the EOC sites the present study revealed similar biomarker and microbiological data in the PICF samples obtained from the EOC and IOC sites.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons

Kıran

Toman

Buduneli

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons

Kıran

Toman

Buduneli

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the 19 included studies, five used ELISA R&D System; a type of sandwich immunoassay where two highly specific antibodies are used to detect a target analyte . Eight used other ELISA kits, two CBA assays, three multiplexes, and one Luminex kit …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limited evidence exists to show the number of subjects with a sufficient sample size; that is, no calculations of statistical power were documented. Among the 19 included studies, only few studies accounted for smoking habits, although smoking has been identified as a risk indicator for peri‐implant inflammation . Other limitations include but are not limited to no consideration of other potential risk indicators for PI, such as history of periodontitis and tissue phenotype.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Matrix metalloproteinase‐9 (proteolytic enzyme) and IL‐1β (cytokine) have proinflammatory effect that appears to have a central role in peri‐implant tissue destruction . The biological effects of IL‐1β depend on its tissue concentration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proinflammatory cytokine levels and peri‐implant parameters among cigarette smokers, individuals vaping electronic cigarettes, and non‐smokers

ArRejaie

Al‐Aali

Alrabiah

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Tobacco smoking compromises the prognosis of dental implant treatment and is associated with increased risk of peri‐implant bone loss and increased implant failure rate. There is a dearth of studies that have compared clinical, radiographic, and immunological peri‐implant parameters among cigarette smokers (CS), individuals vaping e‐cigarettes (e‐cigs), and non‐smokers (NS). This study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic peri‐implant parameters and levels of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)‐9 and interleukin (IL)‐1β levels among CS, individuals’ vaping e‐cigs, and NS. Methods Thirty‐two CS (group 1), 31 individuals vaping e‐cigs (group 2), and 32 NS (group 3) were included. Demographic‐ and implant‐related data were collected using a structured baseline questionnaire. Peri‐implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD) were recorded and marginal bone loss (MBL) were assessed using standardized digital radiographs. Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay was used to assess levels of MMP‐9 and IL‐1β in peri‐implant sulcular fluid. Pearson correlation coefficient was used to analyze for correlations of MMP‐9 and IL‐1β levels with peri‐implant parameters. Results BOP showed significantly higher values in group 3 as compared with groups 1 and 2 (P < 0.01). PI (P < 0.01), PD ≥ 4 mm (P < 0.01), and mean concentrations of MMP‐9 (P < 0.001) and IL‐1β (P < 0.01) were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 than group 3. MBL was significantly higher in group 1 as compared with group 2 and group 3 (P < 0.01). Significant positive correlations were found between MMP‐9 (P = 0.0198) and IL‐1β (P = 0.0047) levels and MBL in group 1; and a significant positive correlation between IL‐1β and MBL in group 2 (P = 0.0031). Conclusions Peri‐implant health was compromised among CS than vaping individuals and NS. Increased levels of proinflammatory cytokines in CS and vaping individuals may suggest greater peri‐implant inflammatory response.

show abstract

Peri‐implant crevicular fluid biomarkers as discriminants of peri‐implant health and disease

Abstract: PICF biomarkers might help discriminate peri-implant health from disease.

Cited by 38 publications

References 31 publications

Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons

Intraoral versus extraoral cementation of implant‐supported single crowns: Clinical, biomarker, and microbiological comparisons

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

Proinflammatory cytokine levels and peri‐implant parameters among cigarette smokers, individuals vaping electronic cigarettes, and non‐smokers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About