Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: A literature review

Wada, Masahiro; Mameno, Tomoaki; Otsuki, Motohiro; Kani, Misako; Tsujioka, Yoshitaka; Ikebe, Kazunori

doi:10.1016/j.jdsr.2021.05.002

Cited by 49 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PIM around the deep mucosal tunnel implant presents delayed disease resolution after non-surgical debridement [ 50 ]. Implant design with an over-contour prosthetic profile also could pose risks for peri-implant health [ 51 , 52 ]. The role of adjunctive treatments in such situations needs further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM). Materials and methods A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent. Conclusion Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis remain an issue for dental implant morbidity and loss. For instance, a recent review reported the prevalence of peri-implant diseases and found that 23.9–88.0% of patients and 9.7–81.0% of implants presented peri-implant mucositis, while 8.9–45.0% of patients and 4.8–23.0% of implants presented peri-implantitis [ 10 ]. Mirroring periodontal disease progression [ 11 ], peri-implant mucositis is the first stage of peri-implant disease, characterized by inflammation of the peri-implant soft tissues without bone loss; whereas peri-implantitis is the later, more chronic phase, characterized by chronic inflammation of the peri-implant mucosa that progressively and irreversibly leads to bone loss, decreased osseointegration and consequently, implant loss [ 2 , 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nisin and Nisin Probiotic Disrupt Oral Pathogenic Biofilms and Restore Their Microbiome Composition towards Healthy Control Levels in a Peri-Implantitis Setting

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri-implantitis is characterized by chronic inflammation of the peri-implant supporting tissues that progressively and irreversibly leads to bone loss and, consequently, implant loss. Similar to periodontal disease, oral dysbiosis is thought to be a driver of peri-implantitis. However, managing peri-implantitis with traditional treatment methods, such as nonsurgical debridement or surgery, is not always successful. Thus, novel strategies have been proposed to address these shortcomings. One strategy is the use of probiotics as antimicrobial agents since they are considered safe for humans and the environment. Specifically, the probiotic Lactococcus lactis produces nisin, which has been used worldwide for food preservation. The objective of this study was to determine whether nisin and the wild-type (WT) nisin-producing L. lactis probiotic can disrupt oral pathogenic biofilms and promote a healthier oral microbiome within these oral biofilms on titanium discs. Using confocal imaging and 16S rRNA sequencing, this study revealed that nisin and WT L. lactis probiotic disrupt oral pathogenic biofilms in a peri-implantitis setting in vitro. More specifically, nisin decreased the viability of the pathogen-spiked biofilms dose-dependently from 62.53 ± 3.69% to 54.26 ± 3.35% and 44.88 ± 2.98%, respectively. Similarly, 105 CFU/mL of WT L. lactis significantly decreased biofilm viability to 52.45 ± 3.41%. Further, both treatments shift the composition, relative abundance, and diversity levels of these biofilms towards healthy control levels. A total of 1 µg/mL of nisin and 103 CFU/mL of WT L. lactis were able to revert the pathogen-mediated changes in the Proteobacteria (from 80.5 ± 2.9% to 75.6 ± 2.0%, 78.0 ± 2.8%, and 75.1 ± 5.3%, respectively) and Firmicutes (from 11.6 ± 1.6% to 15.4 ± 1.3%, 13.8 ± 1.8%, and 13.7 ± 2.6%, respectively) phyla back towards control levels. Thus, nisin and its nisin-producing L. lactis probiotic may be useful in treating peri-implantitis by promoting healthier oral biofilms, which may be useful for improving patient oral health.

show abstract

“…In particular, excessive renal glucose reabsorption has been recognized as one of the main pathophysiological disorders in type 2 DM and a specific class of hypoglycemic agents SGLT2 inhibitors is now widely used to mitigate this phenomenon [14], in nerves, heart, and blood vessels [15][16][17][18]. It therefore represents a risk factor for many systemic and local pathologies including peri-implantitis [19][20][21].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Bench to Bedside in Precision Medicine: Diabetes Mellitus and Peri-Implantitis Clinical Indices with a Short-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dioguardi

Cantore

Scacco

et al. 2022

JPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective: Diabetes mellitus (DM) refers to a group of metabolic disorders characterized by hyperglycemia resulting from impaired secretion or action of insulin. The high levels of glucose in the blood can negatively affect the healing processes through alterations in vascularization, bone remodeling, and with increased susceptibility to infections. Diabetes mellitus is therefore a risk factor not only for many systemic diseases, but also for localized problems such as peri-implantitis. The objective of this systematic review was to identify a clear relationship between peri-implant inflammation indices and glycemic levels, through the investigation of prospective studies that report data on a short-term follow-up period. Our hypothesis was that peri-implant inflammatory indices may already present themselves in a statistically significant way as altered in patients with DM compared to patients without DM. Materials and methods: This review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Results: More than 992 records were identified in the PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial electronic databases and only seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis report worse outcomes in patients with DM, even in the short period of six months, for peri-implatitis inflammation indices, such as Marginal bone loss (standardized (Std). mean difference (MD) 12\6 months 0.81 [0.45, 1.17]\1.82 [0.53, 3.10]), Bleeding on probing (Std. MD 12\6 months 2.84 [1.34, 4.34]\3.44 [1.41, 5.50]), Probing depth (Std. MD 12\6 months 1.14 [0.60, 1.68]\2.24 [0.66, 3.83]), and the plaque index (Std. MD 12 months 2.83 [0.09, 5.57]). Conclusion: The literature linking glycaemic control to peri-implant disease is highly heterogeneous due to lack of consistency of the definition of peri-implantitis and its clinical indicators among studies. Therefore, interpretation of finding and relevance to clinical practice should be considered on individual bases. In the era of personalized medicine, the clinician should utilize individualized information from translational researches and analyze all risk factors to provide the patient with evidence-based treatment options.

show abstract

Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: A literature review

Cited by 49 publications

References 79 publications

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

Nisin and Nisin Probiotic Disrupt Oral Pathogenic Biofilms and Restore Their Microbiome Composition towards Healthy Control Levels in a Peri-Implantitis Setting

From Bench to Bedside in Precision Medicine: Diabetes Mellitus and Peri-Implantitis Clinical Indices with a Short-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About