Supportive peri‐implant therapy following anti‐infective surgical peri‐implantitis treatment: 5‐year survival and success

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.Materials and methods: Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra-and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of periimplant bone loss.Results: Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria.At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of periimplantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years.Conclusion: Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period.

The adjunctive effect of a titanium brush in implant surface decontamination at peri‐implantitis surgical regenerative interventions: A randomized controlled clinical trial

“…This outcome was attained in this RCT in 66.7% of the implants in the test and in 23.1% of implants in the control group. Similar percentages have been reported in studies evaluating 5‐year evolution of surgical peri‐implantitis therapy (Heitz‐Mayfield et al., ; Leonhardt, Dahlen, & Renvert, ; Roos‐Jansaker, Persson, Lindahl, & Renvert, ; Serino, Turri, & Lang, ) and 7‐years evolution (Roccuzzo, Pittoni, Roccuzzo, Charrier, & Dalmasso, ; Schwarz et al., ). Although the results obtained in the test group (adjunctive use of the titanium brush) in this study can be comparable to the best outcomes of the previously cited reports, a longer follow‐up is needed to validate these outcomes, since regular supportive therapy and strict plaque control measures are needed to maintain the results long‐term (Isehed, Svenson, Lundberg, & Holmlund, ).…”

“…Finally, a compound outcome consisting of absence of PPD ≥5 mm, with no BOP/SOP and no additional peri‐implant bone loss at the 12‐month visit, was considered as treatment success (Heitz‐Mayfield et al., ).…”

Influence of keratinized mucosa on the surgical therapeutical outcomes of peri‐implantitis

“…An extensive search of all available peri‐implantitis treatment success criteria was performed. The most employed success criteria after treatment of peri‐implantitis were defined as PPD < 5 mm, absence of BOP/SUP, and no progressive radiographic marginal bone loss (Criteria 1) (Berglundh, Wennstrom, & Lindhe, ; Cha, Lee, & Kim, ; Charalampakis, Rabe, Leonhardt, & Dahlen, ; Heitz‐Mayfield & Mombelli, ; Heitz‐Mayfield et al, ; Isler, Soysal, Ceyhanli, Bakirarar, & Unsal, ; de Tapia et al, ). Criteria 1 were used to define success after both resective and regenerative treatment at T2.…”

Surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: Prognostic indicators of short‐term results

“…Unilevel analyses (Fisher′s exact test) were performed for all variables potentially influencing the outcome. The unilevel analyses were used as a screening tool of variables, and variables with a p ‐value <.15 were further analysed in multilevel regression analyses (Heitz‐Mayfield et al., ). Descriptive statistics were performed using statistical software SPSS, Statistics 24 (IBM, New York, NY, USA).…”