Periodontitis vs. Peri-Implantitis: The Same Disease? The Same Treatment?

Meffert, Roland M.

doi:10.1177/10454411960070030501

Cited by 85 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Issues regarding pre-treatment evaluation and post-treatment maintenance protocols for general dental implant patients are beyond the scope of this review and are discussed elsewhere (Hillenburg et al, 1991;Meffert, 1994;Lord, 1995;Lang et al, 1996;Silverstein et al, 1998;Beikler and Flemmig, 2001). Moreover, the treatment of peri-implant complications (e.g., peri-mucositis, peri-implantitis) is not discussed here but has been reviewed elsewhere (Mombelli and Lang, 1992;Jovanovic, 1994;Meffert, 1994Meffert, , 1996Mombelli, 1997;Beikler and Flemmig, 2001). …”

Section: (I) Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Beikler

Flemmig

2003

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental clinicians are confronted with an increasing number of medically compromised patients who require implant surgery for their oral rehabilitation. However, there are few guidelines on dental implant therapy in this patient category, so that numerous issues regarding pre-and post-operative management remain unclear to the dental clinician. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically based data for implant therapy in the medically compromised patient. This review presents the current knowledge regarding the influence of the most common systemic and local diseases on the outcome of dental implant therapy, e.g., abnormalities in bone metabolism, diabetes mellitus, xerostomia, and ectodermal dysplasias. Specific pathophysiologic aspects of the above-mentioned diseases as well as their potential implications for implant success are critically appraised. In line with these implications, guidelines for pre-and post-operative management that may assist in the successful implant-supported rehabilitation of this patient category are proposed.

show abstract

Section: (I) Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Beikler

Flemmig

2003

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 The infected form can be caused by implant installation next to the preexisted infected lesion, 9,10 implant contamination, 9,11,12 bone necrosis related to overheating or other injury 13,14 and bony microfracture due to premature loading. 9 This form usually has various clinical symptoms such as pain, induration, swelling and fistula formation. 7 IPL can be also subclassified into type I (from implant to tooth) and type II (from tooth to implant) depending on pathologic pathways.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical managements of implant periapical lesions: a report of three cases with five to twelve years of follow-up

Kim

Park

Chang

et al. 2015

J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this report is to suggest clinical managements of implant periapical lesions by presenting three clinical cases managed by either the infected form or the inactive form with the follow-up period of five to twelve years. One patient with no clinical symptom was regarded as inactive form. Two patients having pain were regarded as infected form and have been under the systemic antibiotic therapy. In one patient, the symptom subsided and the size of radiolucent lesion decreased. However, the other patient showed increased size of lesion causing the implant unstable, which leaded to remove the implant and to replace it. There was neither additional increase of the lesion nor functional problem for all three. It is important to detect implant periapical lesion in early stage before jeopardizing the stable implant and manage properly using systemic antibiotic therapy and surgical approach if needed, depending on infected form and inactive form.

show abstract

“…The periodontal probing depth around implants in periodontally compromised patients continues to increase over a long period of time, and there is likely to be a significant difference in the mean peri-implant marginal bone loss between patients with a history of chronic periodontitis and patients who are periodontally healthy (9). In partially edentulous patients, these phenomena are due to translocation of the periodontal micro-flora from diseased teeth to the surfaces of the implant, which can lead to the onset of periimplantitis (20,21). Leonhardt et al (9) also said that, when peri-implant tissue breakdown occurs, this does not appear to be related exclusively to the pathogenic periodontal microorganisms emerging from the periodontal pockets around diseased teeth; it is the result of complex interactions between the micro-flora and host factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A patient with meningeal melanomatosis treated for periodontal disease with a bone regeneration procedure and dental implants: clinical and behavioral management to support medical compliance

Tizzoni¹,

Veneroni

Clerici

2013

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYBackground. During the last three decades dental implants have become increasingly used in partially edentulous periodontally compromised patients. The type of bacteria in the peri-implant sulcus is influenced by the periodontal bacteria present on the surfaces of the remaining teeth. Peri-implant sulci of partially edentulous individuals harbour more motile rods and spirochetes than those of fully edentulous individuals. If Peri-implantitis arises, it may lead to implant failure. This complication occurs more frequently in patients with poor oral hygiene. This is a site-specific bacterial infection similar to that caused by periodontal bacteria around teeth and it should be prevented. Aim. This study was conducted to radiographically evaluate hard tissue response around 6 implants, over a 2-year period, in a previously surgically treated patient affected by severe chronic periodontitis. Psychological considerations and behavioral management of the patient are described. Materials and methods. A complex implant-perio-prosthodontic case of a 54-year-old man affected by meningeal melanomatosis with a history of generalized severe chronic periodontitis was recruited. A comprehensive periodontal examination around teeth was accomplished before periodontal and implant treatment. After diagnostic work-up, compromised teeth from 1.3 to 2.3 and from 3.2 to 4.2 were extracted. Tooth 1.7 was also extracted. Afterwards fixed provisional restoration rehabilitated all the natural dentition and the missing teeth. Endodonthic therapies were conducted on all the teeth due to high dentinal sensitivity and pre-prosthodontic crown reconstructions performed. Periodontal surgery with modified Widman flaps were then accomplished on all the teeth. Three months later four maxillary implants in position 1.3,1.1,2.1,2.3 and two mandibular implants in position 4.2,3.2 were inserted. During mandibular implants positioning, the mental mussels were isolated and detached to achieve proper guided bone regeneration. During implant surgery, due to systemic conditions concern, the patient underwent intravenous sedation. Five months later the implants and the teeth were rehabilitated with fixed metal-ceramic bridges. Regarding the upper prosthetic rehabilitation, the incisors marginal edges were kept vertical to the nasal spine, due to lack of previous reference points. According to the reference points previously determined, the difference in bone level between radiographs taken at implants insertion and at the maintenance appointments was calculated.Results. The health of the periodontally treated teeth resulted greatly enhanced. The mean alveolar bore loss was 0,30 mm after a 2-year observation period. Conclusions. The control of the periodontal disease before implant insertion in patients with severe chronic periodontitis is of paramount importance, as well as a regular maintenance program is essential for the health of the periodontal and peri-implant tissues. The management of patients with complex needs requires a multidisciplinary t...

show abstract

Periodontitis vs. Peri-Implantitis: The Same Disease? The Same Treatment?

Cited by 85 publications

References 76 publications

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Clinical managements of implant periapical lesions: a report of three cases with five to twelve years of follow-up

A patient with meningeal melanomatosis treated for periodontal disease with a bone regeneration procedure and dental implants: clinical and behavioral management to support medical compliance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About