Three-Year Evaluation of the Influence of Implant Surfaces on Implant Failure and Peri-implantitis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial with Split-Mouth Design

Tirone, Federico; Salzano, Stefano; Rodi, Donata; Pozzatti, Laura

doi:10.11607/jomi.8538

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[22][23][24] Implant macrodesign has also been hypothesized to be a possible factor contributing to peri-implant disease. 21,[25][26][27] In support of this hypothesis, greater PI prevalence was found in implants with triple thread, with a microthreaded collar, and with a cylindric shape. 27 The microdesign concerns the chemically or mechanically treated implant surface, such as by acid etching, sandblasting, titanium plasma spraying, and hydroxyapatite coating.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…The macrodesign pertains to the shape of the implant body as well as the design and number of threads and is an established key factor for osseointegration as a crucial element for primary implant stability and possibly for bone‐to‐implant contact (BIC) 22–24 . Implant macrodesign has also been hypothesized to be a possible factor contributing to peri‐implant disease 21,25–27 . In support of this hypothesis, greater PI prevalence was found in implants with triple thread, with a microthreaded collar, and with a cylindric shape 27 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Ravidà

Samal

Qazi

et al. 2023

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Due to the clinical challenges involved in successfully treating peri-implantitis, it is imperative to identify patient-and implant-level risk factors for its prevention. The main goal of this retrospective longitudinal radiographic and clinical study was to investigate whether interproximal radiographic implant thread exposure after physiological bone remodeling may be a risk factor for peri-implantitis. The secondary goal was to evaluate several other potential risk indicators.Methods: Of 4325 active dental school patients having implants placed, 165 partially edentulous adults (77 men, 88 women) aged 30-91 with ≥2 years of follow-up upon implant restoration were included. Implants with ≥1 interproximal thread exposed (no bone-to-implant contact) (n = 98, 35%) constituted the test group and those without exposed threads (n = 182, 65%) the control group. Descriptive, binary, and multivariate regression analyses were evaluated for goodness of fit. Wald tests were used to evaluate for significance set at 0.05. Results:Of the 280 implants (98 test, 182 control), 8 (2.9%) failed over a mean follow-up period of 7.67 (±2.63) years, and 27 implants (19 test, 8 control) developed peri-implantitis, with the exposed group having eight-fold (7.82 times) adjusted greater odds than the non-exposed. The risk increased four-fold (3.77 times) with each thread exposed. No other patient-or implant-related potentially confounding risk factors were identified. Conclusions: Exposed interproximal implant threads after physiologic bone remodeling may be an independent risk indicator for incident peri-implantitis. Hence, clinicians should closely monitor patients with implant threads that have no bone-to-implant contact for incident peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 71%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Ravidà

Samal

Qazi

et al. 2023

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent review including preclinical in vivo experiments and in vivo data, it was shown that the surface structure of modified implants may enhance the progression of peri-implantitis while clinical studies do not confirm this assumption. 52,53 It was also discussed that implants with a modified surface had lower chances to show a successful treatment outcome than those with a non-modified surface. 51 Due to the limited data, no strong conclusions can be made about the possible effects of different implant surfaces on the incidence, progression, or treatment of peri-implantitis.…”

Section: Systemic Antibioticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone regeneration as treatment of peri‐implant disease: A narrative review

Noelken

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Analysis of the 3‐dimensional implant position, the bone defect morphology, and the soft tissue situation guides the decision to preserve or to remove an implant with a severe peri‐implantitis lesion. The aim of this narrative review was to analyze and to comprehensively illustrate the treatment options focusing on peri‐implant bone regeneration in presence of severe peri‐implant bone loss. Methods A database search was performed independently by the two reviewers to identify case reports, case series, cohort, retrospective, and prospective studies about peri‐implant bone regeneration with a follow‐up of at least 6 months. Of the 344 studies issued during the database analysis, 96 publications were selected by the authors for this review. Results Deproteinized bovine bone mineral remains the best documented material for defect regeneration in peri‐implantitis in combination with or without a barrier membrane. While studies using autogenous bone in peri‐implantitis therapy are rarely found, they do report favorable potential of vertical bone regeneration. Moreover, while membranes are an inherent part of the guided bone regeneration, a 5‐year follow‐up study demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements with and without a membrane. The administration of systemic antibiotics is frequently performed in clinical studies observing regenerative surgical peri‐implantitis therapy, but the analysis of the literature does not support a positive effect of this medication. Most studies for regenerative peri‐implantitis surgery recommend the removal of the prosthetic rehabilitation and the use a marginal incision with a full‐thickness access flap elevation. This allows for a good overview for regenerative procedures with a certain risk of wound dehiscences and incomplete regeneration. An alternative approach referring to the poncho technique may reduce the risk of dehiscence. The effectiveness of implant surface decontamination might have an impact on peri‐implant bone regeneration without any clinical superiority of a certain technique. Conclusion The available literature reveals that the success of peri‐implantitis therapy is limited to the reduction of bleeding on probing, the improvement of the peri‐implant probing depth and a small amount of vertical defect fill. On this basis, no specific recommendations for bone regeneration in surgical peri‐implantitis therapy can be made. Innovative approaches for flap design, surface decontamination, bone defect grafting material, and soft tissue augmentation should be followed closely to find advanced techniques for favorable peri‐implant bone augmentation.

show abstract

Hat das Implantatdesign einen Einfluss auf die Entstehung einer Periimplantitis?

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-Year Evaluation of the Influence of Implant Surfaces on Implant Failure and Peri-implantitis: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial with Split-Mouth Design

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Bone regeneration as treatment of peri‐implant disease: A narrative review

Hat das Implantatdesign einen Einfluss auf die Entstehung einer Periimplantitis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About