Article

Treatment of peri-implantitis: what interventions are effective? A Cochrane systematic review.

Department of Biomaterials, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Göteborg University, Sweden.
European Journal of Oral Implantology (Impact Factor: 2.02). 01/2012; 5 Suppl:S21-41.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify the most effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis around osseointe-grated oral implants.
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to the 9th of June 2011 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing agents or interventions for treating peri-implantitis around oral implants. Primary outcome measures were implant failure, radiographic marginal bone level change, complications and side effects, and recurrence of peri-implantitis. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. The statistical unit was the patient and not the implant unless the clustering of the implants within the patients had been taken into account. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Fifteen eligible trials were identified, but six were excluded. The following interventions were compared in the nine included studies: different non-surgical interventions (five trials), adjunctive treatments to non-surgical interventions (one trial), and different surgical interventions (two trials) and adjunctive treatments to surgical interventions (one trial). Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 4 years. No study was judged to be at low risk of bias. Statistically significant differences were observed in two small single trials judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed improved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82) and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79). After 4 years, patients with periimplant infrabony defects >3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers showed an improvement of 1.4 mm for PAL (95% CI 0.24 to 2.56) and PPD (95% CI 0.81 to 1.99) compared to patients treated with a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite.
There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating peri-implantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. A single small trial at unclear risk of bias showed that the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement in PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients affected by severe forms of peri-implantitis. Another small single trial at high risk of bias showed that after 4 years, improved PAL and PPD of about 1.4 mm were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barriers compared to a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite in peri-implant infrabony defects. There is no evidence from four trials that the more complex and expensive therapies were more beneficial than the control therapies, which basically consisted of simple subgingival mechanical debridement. Follow-up longer than 1 year suggested recurrence of peri-implantitis in up to 100% of the treated cases for some of the tested interventions. As this can be a chronic disease, re-treatment may be necessary. Larger well-designed RCTs with follow-ups longer than 1 year are needed.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Helen V Worthington, Jul 06, 2015
4 Followers
 · 
227 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Peri-implantitis is characterized by inflammation and crestal bone loss in the tissues surrounding implants. Contamination by deleterious bacteria in the peri-implant microenvironment is believed to be a major factor in the etiology of peri-implantitis. Prior to any therapeutic regenerative treatment, adequate decontamination of the peri-implant microenvironment must occur. Herein we present a novel approach to the treatment of peri-implantitis that incorporates the use of a topical desiccant (HYBENX), along with air powder abrasives as a means of decontamination, followed by the application of biphasic calcium sulfate combined with inorganic bovine bone material to augment the intrabony defect. We highlight the case of a 62-year-old man presenting peri-implantitis at two neighboring implants in positions 12 and 13, who underwent access flap surgery, followed by our procedure. After an uneventful 2-year healing period, both implants showed an absence of bleeding on probing, near complete regeneration of the missing bone, probing pocket depth reduction, and clinical attachment gain. While we observed a slight mucosal recession, there was no reduction in keratinized tissue. Based on the results described within, we conclude that the use of HYBENX and air powder abrasives, followed by bone defect grafting, represents a viable option in the treatment of peri-implantitis.
    01/2015; 2015. DOI:10.1155/2015/474839
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Periodontally involved teeth have been implicated as 'microbial reservoirs' in the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to use a deep-sequencing approach to identify the degree of congruence between adjacent peri-implant and periodontal microbiomes in states of health and disease. Subgingival and peri-implant biofilm samples were collected from 81 partially edentulous individuals with periodontal and peri-implant health and disease. Bacterial DNA was isolated, and the 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced by pyrotag sequencing. Chimera-depleted sequences were compared against a locally hosted curated database for bacterial identification. Statistical significance was determined by paired Student's t tests between tooth-implant pairs. The 1.9 million sequences identified represented 523 species. Sixty percent of individuals shared less than 50% of all species between their periodontal and peri-implant biofilms, and 85% of individuals shared less than 8% of abundant species between tooth and implant. Additionally, the periodontal microbiome demonstrated significantly higher diversity than the implant, and distinct bacterial lineages were associated with health and disease in each ecosystem. Analysis of our data suggests that simple geographic proximity is not a sufficient determinant of colonization of topographically distinct niches, and that the peri-implant and periodontal microbiomes represent microbiologically distinct ecosystems.
    Journal of dental research 10/2013; 92(S12). DOI:10.1177/0022034513504950 · 4.14 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: Because antimicrobial therapy is often employed in the treatment of infectious dental implant complications, this study determined the occurrence of in vitro antibiotic resistance among putative peri-implantitis bacterial pathogens. METHODS: Submucosal biofilm specimens were cultured from 160 dental implants with peri-implantitis in 120 adults, with isolated putative pathogens identified to species level, and tested in vitro for susceptibility to 4 mg/l of doxycycline, 8 mg/l of amoxicillin, 16 mg/l of metronidazole, and 4 mg/l of clindamycin. Findings for amoxicillin and metronidazole were combined post-hoc to identify peri-implantitis species resistant to both antibiotics. Gram-negative enteric rods/pseudomonads were subjected to ciprofloxacin disk diffusion testing. RESULTS: One or more cultivable submucosal bacterial pathogens, most often Prevotella intermedia/nigrescens or Streptococcus constellatus, were resistant in vitro to clindamycin, amoxicillin, doxycycline, or metronidazole in 46.7%, 39.2%, 25%, and 21.7% of the peri-implantitis subjects, respectively. Only 6.7% subjects revealed submucosal test species resistant in vitro to both amoxicillin and metronidazole, which were either S. constellatus (one subject) or ciprofloxacin-susceptible strains of gram-negative enteric rods/pseudomonads (seven subjects). Overall, 71.7% of the 120 peri-implantitis subjects exhibited submucosal bacterial pathogens resistant in vitro to one or more of the tested antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implantitis patients frequently yielded submucosal bacterial pathogens resistant in vitro to individual therapeutic concentrations of clindamycin, amoxicillin, doxycycline, or metronidazole, but only rarely to both amoxicillin and metronidazole. Due to the wide variation in observed drug resistance patterns, antibiotic susceptibility testing of cultivable submucosal bacterial pathogens may aid in the selection of antimicrobial therapy for peri-implantitis patients.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/2013; DOI:10.1111/clr.12160 · 3.12 Impact Factor