ArticlePDF Available

Periimplantitis, periodontitis, endodontics: A dental market analysis and future trends

Authors:
  • Freiburger Medizintechnik GmbH

Abstract and Figures

Background: The ageing of the population and the importance of aesthetics has put pressure on the delivery of dental care. Bacterial infection in intra-oral cavities can develop into a pathogenic biofilm, which then induces inflammatory processes. One of the necessary dental treatment steps is the disinfection of the infected area, whether it is in the root canal, or in the periodontal, periapical, or peri-implant regions. The objective of this review was to assess the actual situation and trends in the treatments for three of the most important areas of dental health: peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and endodontics. Methods: Results from clinical studies, reports from dental associations, national health insurance records, and market reports were used to quantify the number of treatment needs. For peri-implantitis, the number of inserted implants and the prevalence of peri-implantitis build the basis for the computation. For periodontitis and root canal treatments (RCTs), health insurance figures, and reports on dental instrument orders are the data sources for the estimations. Results: The data show that the number of performed periodontitis and RCTs increase linearly over the year, mainly driven by demographic changes, i.e., increase in size and age of populations. The computed values show that the treatment need for peri-implantitis follows an exponential growth and may surpass that of periodontitis by 2023 in Europe and in the USA. Conclusion: Where dental implantology is growing, the rapid development of peri-implant diseases will burden the health systems. This should be addressed at different levels. At the practitioners’ level, this includes continuous training of staff and (re)investment in adequate material and infrastructures. At the governmental level, it includes policy development and reimbursement strategies as well as information dissemination in health insurance and dental associations. Last, but not least, R&D efforts in the public and private sectors should be implemented/boosted.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Abstract
Background: The ageing of the population and the importance of aesthetics put pressure on the delivery of dental care. Bacterial
infection in intra-oral cavities can develop into a pathogenic biofilm, which then induces inflammatory processes. One of the
necessary dental treatment steps is the disinfection of the infected area, whether it is in the root canal, or in the periodontal,
periapical, or peri-implant regions. The objective of this review is to assess the actual situation and trends in the treatments for
three of the most important areas of dental health: peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and endodontics.
Methods: Results from clinical studies, reports from dental associations, national health insurance records, and market reports
are used to quantify the number of treatment needs. For peri-implantitis, the number of inserted implants and the prevalence of
peri-implantitis build the basis for the computation. For periodontitis and root canal treatments (RCTs), health insurance figures,
and reports on dental instrument orders are the data sources for the estimations.
Results: The data show that the number of performed periodontitis and RCTs increase linearly over the year, mainly driven by
demographic changes, i.e., increase in size and age of populations. The computed values show that the treatment need for peri-
implantitis follows an exponential growth and may surpass that of periodontitis by 2023 in Europe and in the USA.
Conclusion: Where dental implantology is growing, the rapid development of peri-implant diseases will burden the health
systems. This should be addressed at different levels. At the practitioners’ level, this includes continuous training of staff
and (re)investment in adequate material and infrastructures. At the governmental level, it includes policy development and
reimbursement strategies as well as information dissemination in health insurance and dental associations. Last, but not least,
R&D efforts in the public and private sectors should be implemented/boosted.
Keywords: Peri-implantitis, Periodontitis, Endodontics, Dental care, Dental implantation
Introduction
Dental implants are the crown of today’s dentistry.
The need for dental implants can be expressed in one
exemplary statement: “In the world’s largest market, the
United States, more than 36 million Americans do not
have any teeth, and 120 million people in the United
States are missing at least one tooth.”1 Although dental
implants are becoming a standard solution to dental loss,
they come with the risk of bacterial-related complications.
Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory, usually irreversible
process induced by a pathogenic biofilm in the tissue
surrounding the functional osseointegrated implant,
leading to the loss of the supporting bone and, often, of
the implant. At a preliminary stage, mucositis in the peri-
implant soft tissue is a reversible inflammatory change
without bone loss. Peri-implantitis is to a dental implant
what periodontitis is to a natural tooth.
According to the World Health Organization, oral
disorders are the most common causes of the global
burden of disease, and periodontal diseases are the second
most common oral disease worldwide after dental decay.2
According to the European Federation of Periodontology
(EFP), periodontitis is the “most common chronic
inflammatory disease,” with 6 out of 8 people showing
some degree of periodontal inflammation.3 However,
treatment need not necessarily lead to therapy.4 Therefore,
this data from the EFP is not an indication of how many
periodontal treatments are performed on a daily basis in
a dental practice.
Endodontics focuses on the treatment of root canals
and tooth pulp to keep the natural tooth in a healthy state.
In endodontics, as for periodontitis and peri-implantitis,
the control of the bacterial burden is essential, and a
complete disinfection of the site is the overarching aim of
Peri-implantitis, periodontitis, endodontics: Dental market
analysis and future trends
Loic Alain Ledernez1*
ID
, Michael Eckhardt Bergmann2
ID
, Markus Jörg Altenburger1
ID
1Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center – University of
Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
2Department of Microsystems Engineering (IMTEK), Laboratory for Sensors, Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg, Freiburg,
Germany
*Corresponding Author: Loic Alain Ledernez, Email: loic.ledernez@gmail.com
Received: July 22, 2021, Accepted: February 7, 2022, ePublished: March 29, 2023
https://johoe.kmu.ac.ir
10.34172/johoe.2023.01
Vol. 12, No. 1, 2023, 1-7
Review Article
Citation: Ledernez LA, Bergmann ME, Altenburger MJ. Peri-implantitis, periodontitis, endodontics: dental market analysis and future
trends. J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. 2023;12(1):1–7. doi:10.34172/johoe.2023.01
Journal of
Oral Health and Oral Epidemiology
Ledernez et al
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 20232
the respective therapies.
The objective of this review is to assess the actual
situation and trends in the number of performed
treatments for three dental procedures that include a
disinfection step: peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and
endodontics. The regions in focus are Germany, Europe
as a whole, and the United States.
Methods
Peri-implantitis
Peri-implantitis therapies are usually paid out-of-pocket
and are not reported by health authorities. Therefore,
to estimate the peri-implantitis treatment statistics, we
followed a three-step reasoning: 1) How many implants
are already inserted? 2) How many inserted implants
lead to peri-implantitis? 3) How many treatments does a
dental implant need if peri-implantitis is diagnosed?
1. We assessed the number of inserted dental implants
from reports from the dental companies Straumann
and Nobel Biocare, the American College of
Prosthodontists, and the Millennium Research
Group. On the one hand, according to the new
classification of periodontitis and peri-implantitis
by the EFP and the American Academy of
Periodontology (AAP ), both diseases are considered
treatable but not curable.5,6 This means that patients
with peri-implantitis should regularly come to
their dentists for maintenance therapy. Hence, the
number of implants to be treated in a given year is
not the number of inserted implants in that year,
but statistically, the cumulative number of inserted
implants, which is much higher.
2. On the other hand, the insertion of a dental implant
does not necessarily lead to the occurrence of
peri-implantitis. Hence, we need to consider the
prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis as
reported in the scientific literature. The number of
peri-implantitis cases can then be calculated from
the cumulative number of inserted implants over the
years and the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
3. The current guideline for the treatment of peri-implant
infections recommends regular check-up (ideally
initially every three months and then according
to individual risk) in order to identify the need for
follow-up treatment at an early stage.7 In case follow-
up treatment is necessary, a professional cleaning and
disinfection of the implant should take place at least
twice a year.8–10 Will the patients come to their dentist
that often? This frequency seems realistic according
to the survey of 435 699 people worldwide,11 which
showed that nearly 68% visit their dentist at least
once a year and about 50% get a professional dental
cleaning on a yearly basis. Therefore, treatment need
can reasonably be estimated to be twice the number
of peri-implantitis cases.
Periodontitis
We first looked into the data provided by the statutory
and private German health insurances12 and considered
the relevant positions related to periodontitis treatments.
These positions are P200, P201, P202, and P203 of
the BEMA (Einheitliche Bewertungsmaßstab für
zahnärztliche Leistungen = uniform standard for the
assessment of dental services, i.e., statutory health
insurance), and 4070, 4075, 4090, and 4100 of the GOZ
(Gebührenordnung für Zahnärzte = fee schedule for
dentists, i.e., private health insurance).
Because few countries collect data on the treatments
being performed,13 we assume a five-fold ratio between
the number of periodontal treatments carried out in
Europe compared to Germany. This is based on the
following considerations:
The prevalence of periodontal disease in European
countries14 though diagnosis of periodontal disease
varies from country to country and prevalence values
are only an approximation.15
The spending on oral healthcare services in European
countries16 though the relatively higher cost of
healthcare in Germany alters the relation between
cost and number of treatments.
The periodontitis market in the United States has been
evaluated by Flemmig and Beikler over many years.17
They observed a low percentage of treatments in relation
to the prevalence of periodontitis, increasing from about
4% in 1990 to 5% in 2006. By extrapolating the percentage
of the population undergoing periodontitis treatment
(from the figures of 1990, 1999, and 2006) and taking into
account the demographics of the United States, one can
compute the number of periodontal treatments for the
year 2019 and the following years.
Endodontics
Similar to the periodontitis case, we used the data provided
by the statutory and private German health insurances12
to estimate the number of root canal treatments (RCTs)
performed in Germany. For the European market, the
number is estimated to be five times that of the German
market. This ratio is here further underpinned by the
22.5% market value share of Germany (in $) compared
to that of the European market in the “endodontics and
orthodontics” sector.18 To cross-check those results, an
alternative method was applied based on the number
of sold files used for RCT from a report on the dental
instrument purchases.18 In order to forecast the future
number of endodontic treatments, one should consider
the trend from the Future Market Insights report,18
though tared to the figure from the health insurance
for the year 2019. Assuming that the number of files
per treated tooth is the same in the USA as in Europe,
the number of treated teeth in the United States (ZUSA)
is calculated using the ratio ZUSA/ZEU = FUSA/FEU, with FUSA
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 2023 3
Trends in dental treatment needs
representing the number of sold files in the United States.
Results
Peri-implantitis
The penetration rates of dental implants given by
Straumann for 2011 and 2017 are shown in Table 1 for
Germany and the United States.19,20 The reports give
figures for many more countries. These numbers correlate
well with data from other sources:
Nobel Biocare: 12 Mio. implants were inserted in
201221 (vs. 14.2 Mio. worldwide, calculated from data
from the Straumann Group19 in 2011)
Millennium Research Group: “Last year [2012], an
estimated 1.26 Mio. dental implant procedures were
performed in the United States”22 (vs. 1.59 Mio. from
Straumann Group19 in 2011)
American College of Prosthodontists (2017):
“Approx. 2.3 million implant-supported crowns are
made annually”1 (vs. 2.6 Mio. in the USA from the
Straumann Group20 in 2017)
Scientific reports show that peri-implantitis occurs
statistically years after implant insertion and that its
prevalence and incidence increase dramatically in the
lifetime of the inserted implants. This means that the
treatment need in a particular year is not related to the
number of inserted implants in that year.
“Prevalence (patient level) for peri-implant
mucositis (inflammation of the mucous membrane)
and peri-implantitis vary from 19 to 65% and 1 to
47%, respectively. The weighted average prevalence
for peri-implant mucositis is 43% (1196 patients,
4209 implants) and 22% for peri-implantitis (2131
patients, 8893 implants).”7
Another industry independent analysis of the
effectiveness of peri-implantitis therapy in a Swedish
population in 2016 showed that after 9 years, 60%
of patients suffered from moderate or severe peri-
implant changes.23
The incidence and progression of peri-implantitis
was reported to be non-linear and to accelerate over
time.24
Several studies also showed 100% implant-related
mucositis in patients.25–27
Hence, we concluded that the number of implants
presenting peri-implantitis in a given year is, statistically,
the sum of all implants inserted up to 9 years ago (because
it is not curable) × 60% (prevalence after 9 years). The
needed peri-implantitis treatment in that given year is
twice that value due to the realistic two treatments per
year. That value is the number of implants that require
a primary therapy and, subsequently, a maintenance
therapy, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Periodontitis
Adding the figures shown in Table 2 and 3, we arrive at a
total of 30.23 Mio. teeth of statutory and private patients
treated for periodontitis in 2019 (note that a therapy
usually consists of several treatments or sessions). A
German oral health study28 showed that on average
2.7 teeth (for the 35- to 44-year-olds) to 3.1 teeth (in
younger seniors, i.e., 65- to 74-year-olds) present a severe
periodontal disease. If a patient is treated for periodontitis
(as accounted in Tables 2 and 3), the dentist will treat on
average three teeth per treatment. This means that 10.1
million periodontal treatments (sessions) were performed
Table 1. Number of inserted implants
2011 2017
Penetration
rate (per 10k
Inhab.)
Quantity
(Mio.)
Penetration
rate (per 10k
Inhab.)
Quantity
(Mio.)
Germany 120 0.97 160 1.32
Europe 80 4.07 110 5.63
USA 50 1.59 80 2.55
Figure 1. Computed number of inserted dental implants in the United States. The sum of implants inserted up the 9 years before (here 2012, hatched area) is
the relevant reference to estimate the number of needed treatments in the target year (here 2021)
Ledernez et al
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 20234
in Germany and 50.38 million periodontitis treatments
were carried out in the EU (Incl. Germany) in 2019. In
the USA, nearly 19.7 Mio. periodontal treatments were
performed in 2019 (Table 4).
To forecast the number of periodontitis treatments for
the coming years, we take the value from the annual report
of the National Association of Statutory Dental Health
Insurance29: “Expenditure on periodontological services
increased by 3.1 percent. The long-term upward trend
in the area of periodontal treatment is reflected in the
increase in the number of cases. In the field of periodontal
treatment, the number of cases has risen by a total of
around 49% over the past 15 years, or by an average of
2.7% per year.” For the European market, we apply a five-
fold ratio to the German market. The forecasted values
for the U.S. market can be computed for the coming years
based on the data gathered by Fleming et al. (see Table 4).
This leads to the forecast shown in Figure 3.
Endodontics
Adding up the relevant positions of the statutory and
private health insurances (see Table 5), a total of about
9.3 Mio. root canals were prepared in Germany in 2019.
Assuming an average of 1.73 root canals per tooth,30 the
number of treated teeth (RCT) was approximately 5.38
Mio. in Germany. For the European market, five times
the value for the German market leads to approximately
26.90 Mio. RCTs.
Future Market Insights18 reported that 32.47 million
files were sold in Europe. This is higher than the
determined number of treatments using the data from
health insurance. An explanation for this difference may
be the price difference of the sold files inside the European
market, which would lead to a deviance from the five-
fold ratio assumed above. The difference may further be
explained by possible evaluation deviations in the survey
of the practices provided by the Federal Chamber of
Figure 2. Computed peri-implantitis treatment need. The need follows an exponential growth because peri-implantitis cannot be cured as it is considered a
chronic oral disease
Table 2. Statutory health patients in 2019 in Germany
BEMA position BEMA description Quantity
P200
Systematic treatment of periodontal diseases
(supra- and sub-gingival debridement),
closed procedure per treated single-rooted
tooth
14 774 700
P201
Systematic treatment of periodontal diseases
(supra- and sub-gingival debridement),
closed procedure per treated multi-rooted
tooth
7 999 300
P202 Surgical therapy per single-root tooth 87 700
P203 Surgical therapy per multi-root tooth 106 800
TOTAL 22 968 500
Note. BEMA = Einheitliche Bewertungsmaßstab für zahnärztliche
Leistungen = uniform standard for the assessment of dental services.
Table 3. Private patients in 2019 in Germany
GOZ position GOZ description Quantity
4070 Surgical therapy per tooth with single root
canals 4 070 000
4075 Surgical therapy per tooth with several root
canals 3 060 000
4090 Flap OP, open curettage anterior tooth per
periodontium 50 000
4100 Flap OP, open curettage posterior tooth per
periodontium 80 000
Total 7 260 000
Note. GOZ = Gebührenordnung für Zahnärzte = fee schedule for dentists.
Table 4. Number of periodontitis treatments in the United States
Year Population
Number of
treatments in
thousands
Percentage of treatments
in relation to the
population (%)
1990 252 120 309 10 000 3.97
1999 281 710 909 13 000 4.61
2006 294 993 511 15 000 5.08
2019 329 978 171 19 766 5.92 (determined from a
linear regression line)
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 2023 5
Trends in dental treatment needs
Dentists (BZÄK). It can also be that files are sold but not
used or not used for endodontic treatments.
According to Future Market Insights,18 32.66 million
endodontic files were sold in North America in 2019.
From a market share value of about 89.4% (in $) for the
United States (rest = Canada, where the file cost is similar),
it is possible to calculate that 29.2 Mio. endodontic files
were sold in the United States in 2019. Keeping the same
ratio of endodontic files to RCT, an estimated 25.58 Mio.
root canals were treated in 2019 in the United States. This
is displayed in Figure 4.
Discussion
Peri-implantitis
Table 1 shows a 33% growth rate between 2011 and 2017.
Various factors explain the growth of the market for
dental implants:
Demography: As populations are ageing,31 the need
for dental prostheses increases;
Affordability: The cost of dental implant systems is
decreasing with new generations. Moreover, medical
tourism is an expanding market lowering the cost
hurdle of dental implants32;
Training: The number of dentists trained in implant
placement is increasing, albeit disparately.33,34 New
education tools and techniques facilitate continuous
education35;
Aesthetics: People are increasingly opting for
cosmetic surgery and dental implants.36
The number of dental implant insertions is increasing
rapidly as shown above. The demand for peri-implantitis
treatments is growing even faster: the latter is indeed
calculated based on the cumulative sum of inserted
implants. Our calculation shows that the need for
treatment will almost double in about 6 years. This steep
development was also recognized by the Millennium
Research Group22: “The number of dental implant
procedures is expected to double in 7 years to 2 540 000.”
This figure predicted in 2013 for the year 2020 is lower
than our actual estimation of 2.89 Mio. computed for
2020 in the United States, confirming that the dental
implant market is developing even faster than predicted
in 2013.
Periodontitis
In Germany, there is a considerable discrepancy between
periodontitis diagnosis (Approx. 25% of the people with
statutory health insurance) and periodontitis therapy
(only Approx. 2%).4 Therefore, compared to the very high
prevalence, there is undoubtedly a therapy deficiency.
One reason might be that periodontal inflammation does
not cause pain,3 at least in its mild form. There might also
be a lack of confidence in the treatment outcome. In fact,
the IQWIG (German Institute for Quality and Efficiency
in Health Care) evaluated the efficacy of current treatment
methods. It reported that the closed mechanical therapy
brings only a slight benefit compared to no treatment;
All other therapy concepts (laser, photodynamic therapy,
Widman flap technique, and surgical pocket elimination
with osteoplasty), individualized oral hygiene education
program, enamel matrix derivatives, antiseptic pocket
irrigation, subgingival air-polishing, and chlorhexidine
rinse showed no benefit over the closed mechanical
therapy.37 This result was confirmed by a longitudinal
analysis of the accounting data of German statutory
health insurance BARMER GEK, allowing an empirical
consideration of the periodontal treatment results.
Based on the “extraction-free survival” outcome over a
four-year period, it showed that periodontally treated
patients have an approximately 64% chance of keeping
their treated tooth compared to a 73% risk of further
Figure 3. Number of treatments for periodontal inflammation in the United
States and Europe. The very high prevalence for periodontitis counterbalances
the fact that few people take care of their periodontal condition
Table 5. Number of root canal treatments for statutory and private patients
in 2019 in Germany
Position Description Number
P32 (BEMA) Root canal preparation (statutory patients) 8 206 900
2410 (GOZ) Root canal preparation (private patients) 1 100 000
Total 9 309 900
Note. BEMA = Einheitliche Bewertungsmaßstab für zahnärztliche
Leistungen = uniform standard for the assessment of dental services.
GOZ = Gebührenordnung für Zahnärzte = fee schedule for dentists.
Figure 4. Number of root canal treatments in the United States and Europe
Ledernez et al
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 20236
tooth extraction for the precisely matched untreated
reference population.13 In other words, the prevalence
of periodontitis is not a good indication of the number
of treatments being actually performed. Indeed, the
prevalence of periodontal disease is decreasing.38
However, the ageing of the population and the increase in
the prevalence of diabetes16 counterbalance those trends
and the absolute number of treatments remains high and
slightly increasing over time. Information campaigns
about the importance oral hygiene and regular visits to
the dentists are on-going and may increase the percentage
of treatment actually sought by patients needing it in the
coming years.39
Endodontics
In 2017, the main German statutory health insurance
(BARMER) reported a slight decrease in the age- and
gender-standardized rate of claimed RCTs over the years
2010 to 2015 from 6.4% to 5.8%.40 However, this decrease
is not reflected in the number of sold files reported in
the Future Market Insights report.18 The first reason may
be that the increase of the German population partly
compensates for the rate of claimed treatments. Secondly,
the ageing of the population may cause an increase in the
number of sold files. As shown in the BARMER report,40
the claim rate is not constant across the age group but is
significantly higher among the 35- to 80-year-olds. This,
in turn, means that an ageing society, as can be observed
in all industrialized countries, implicates an increasing
need for RCTs.
Conclusion
The ageing of the population increases the prevalence of
oral diseases and periodontitis will remain the second most
common oral disease for the coming years. However, in
the particular case of periodontitis, treatment need does
not necessarily lead to therapy; although the absolute
number of periodontal treatments will remain high
because of the high prevalence among the population
worldwide, it is only increasing slowly. The request for
endodontic treatment may remain much lower than for
periodontitis. However, driven by the acute pain, the
need for treatment generally leads to actual treatment;
Therefore, the absolute number of RCTs is relatively close
to the treatment need, and both increase mainly due to
demographic reasons.
Peri-implantitis is a totally different situation: It is the
result of the insertion of a foreign body. Affordability
and aesthetics, driving the increase of dental implant
insertions, is indirectly increasing the need for peri-
implantitis treatment. Because it is a chronic disease, the
treatment need is growing exponentially. It remains to
be seen whether the treatment need for peri-implantitis
will lead to actual treatment being sought by patients.
Whether there is a discrepancy between treatment need
and performed treatment (as for periodontitis) or not (as
for endodontics), the forecasts show that the number of
actual treatments for peri-implantitis may surpass that
of periodontitis therapy by 2023 in Europe and in the
United States.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (grant number 03VP06620).
Authors’ Contribution
Conceptualization: Loic Ledernez, Markus Altenburger.
Data curation: Loic Ledernez.
Formal analysis: Loic Ledernez.
Investigation: Loic Ledernez.
Methodology: Loic Ledernez, Markus Altenburger.
Project administration: Michael Bergmann.
Supervision: Michael Bergmann, Markus Altenburger.
Software: Loic Ledernez.
Resources: Michael Bergmann, Markus Altenburger.
Validation: Loic Ledernez, Markus Altenburger.
Visualization: Loic Ledernez.
Writing–original draft: Loic Ledernez.
Writing–review & editing: Loic Ledernez, Michael Bergmann,
Markus Altenburger.
Competing Interests
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was supported by the German Federal Ministry of
Education and Research (grant number 03VP06620).
References
1. American College of Prosthodontists. Facts & Figures. 2017.
https://www.gotoapro.org/facts-figures.
2. James SL, Abate D, Abate KH, Abay SM, Abbafati C,
Abbasi N, et al. Global, regional, and national incidence,
prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases
and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a
systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789-858. doi: 10.1016/
s0140-6736(18)32279-7.
3. European Federation of Periodontology (EFP). Dossier on
Periodontal Disease. Gum Health Day; 2018.
4. Hönighaus V. Stille Volkskrankheit Parodontitis.
Mitteilungsblatt Berliner Zahnärzte. 2017;10-3. https://
www.kzv-berlin.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Praxis-Service/3_
Publikationen/2_MBZ/2017/MBZ_06_2017.pdf.
5. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco
J, Camargo PM, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions:
consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop
on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases
and Conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S313-S8.
doi: 10.1002/jper.17-0739.
6. Al-Sabbagh M, Shaddox LM. Is peri-implantitis curable?
Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63(3):547-66. doi: 10.1016/j.
cden.2019.02.003.
7. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Implantologie (DGI). Die
Behandlung Periimplantärer Infektionen an Zahnimplantaten.
DGI; 2021.
8. Shah R, Talati M, Mitra D, Rodrigues S, Shetty G, Vijayakar
H. Implant maintenance-a new protocol. Int J Adv Res Dev.
2017;2(11):49-51.
9. Shumaker ND, Metcalf BT, Toscano NT, Holtzclaw DJ.
J Oral Health Oral Epidemiol. Volume 12, Number 1, 2023 7
Trends in dental treatment needs
Periodontal and periimplant maintenance: a critical factor in
long-term treatment success. Compend Contin Educ Dent.
2009;30(7):388-90.
10. Bidra AS, Daubert DM, Garcia LT, Kosinski TF, Nenn CA,
Olsen JA, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for recall and
maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne
dental restorations. J Prosthodont. 2016;25 Suppl 1:S32-40.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12416.
11. Marketagent. Dental Report 2019. 2019. www.marketagent.
com.
12. Kassenzahnärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KZBV). Jahrbuch
2020. Statistische Basisdaten zur vertragszahnärztlichen
Versorgung. 2020.
13. FDI World Dental Federation. Oral Health for an Ageing
Population. Roadmap for Healthy Ageing. 2018. https://www.
fdiworlddental.org/sites/default/files/media/resources/ohap-
2018-roadmap_ageing.pdf.
14. König J, Holtfreter B, Kocher T. Periodontal health in
Europe: future trends based on treatment needs and the
provision of periodontal services--position paper 1. Eur J
Dent Educ. 2010;14 Suppl 1:4-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0579.2010.00620.x.
15. Romano F, Perotto S, Castiglione A, Aimetti M. Prevalence
of periodontitis: misclassification, under-recognition or
over-diagnosis using partial and full-mouth periodontal
examination protocols. Acta Odontol Scand. 2019;77(3):189-
96. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2018.1535136.
16. Patel R. The State of Oral Health in Europe Report
Commissioned by the Platform for Better Oral Health in
Europe. 2012.
17. Flemmig TF, Beikler T. Economics of periodontal care: market
trends, competitive forces and incentives. Periodontol 2000.
2013;62(1):287-304. doi: 10.1111/prd.12009.
18. Future Market Insights. Endodontics and Orthodontics
Product Market. 2018. www.futuremarketinsights.com.
19. Achermann G, Day CC. How Will Dentistry Look in 2020?
2012. https://silo.tips/download/how-will-dentistry-look-
in-2020.
20. Straumann Group. Markets - Position Bolstered, Addressable
Market Expanded. 2017. https://www.straumann.com/group/
en/discover/annualreport/2017/management-commentary/
markets.html.
21. Nobel Biocare. Annual Report 2013: The Dental Market.
Nobel Biocare; 2013.
22. Millennium Research Group. US Markets for Dental
Implants 2013. Millennium Research Group; 2013.
http://mrg.net/Products-and-Services/Syndicated-Report.
aspx?r = RPUS22DE13.
23. Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C,
Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a
Swedish population: prevalence of peri-implantitis. J Dent
Res. 2016;95(1):43-9. doi: 10.1177/0022034515608832.
24. Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi
C, Berglundh T. Peri-implantitis - onset and pattern of
progression. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43(4):383-8. doi:
10.1111/jcpe.12535.
25. Cecchinato D, Parpaiola A, Lindhe J. A cross-sectional study
on the prevalence of marginal bone loss among implant
patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):87-90. doi:
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02457.x.
26. Cecchinato D, Parpaiola A, Lindhe J. Mucosal inflammation
and incidence of crestal bone loss among implant patients: a
10-year study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(7):791-6. doi:
10.1111/clr.12209.
27. Marrone A, Lasserre J, Bercy P, Brecx MC. Prevalence and
risk factors for peri-implant disease in Belgian adults. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(8):934-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-
0501.2012.02476.x.
28. Bundeszahnärztekammer und Kassenzahnärztliche
Bundesvereinigung. Zahnärztliche Versorgung - Daten &
Fakten 2020. 2020. www.bzaek.de.
29. Kassenzahnärztliche Bundesvereinigung. Weichenstellung,
Geschäftsbericht. 2019.
30. Schumacher GH. Anatomie: Lehrbuch und Atlas. Band 1.
Leipzig, Heidelberg: Johann Ambrosius Barth; 1991.
31. World Health Organization (WHO). Ageing and Health.
2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/
ageing-and-health.
32. Napitu A. Dental Tourism 2021: Get Cheaper Dental Implants
and Veneers Abroad. 2020 [2020 Dec 17]. https://www.
dentaly.org/us/dental-tourism-usa/.
33. Gürsoy M, Wilensky A, Claffey N, Herrera D, Preshaw
PM, Sanz M, et al. Periodontal education and assessment
in the undergraduate dental curriculum-a questionnaire-
based survey in European countries. Eur J Dent Educ.
2018;22(3):e488-e99. doi: 10.1111/eje.12330.
34. Katsaros T, Allareddy V, Elangovan S. Dental students’
exposure to periodontal and implant placement surgeries
in U.S. dental schools. J Dent Educ. 2019;83(8):953-8. doi:
10.21815/jde.019.090.
35. Ferro AS, Nicholson K, Koka S. Innovative trends in implant
dentistry training and education: a narrative review. J Clin
Med. 2019;8(10):1618. doi: 10.3390/jcm8101618.
36. Shen JK, Every J, Morrison SD, Massenburg BB, Egbert MA,
Susarla SM. Global interest in oral and maxillofacial surgery:
analysis of Google Trends data. J Oral Maxillofac Surg.
2020;78(9):1484-91. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.05.017.
37. IQWiG. Systematische Behandlung von Parodontopathien.
2017. https://www.iqwig.de/download/N15-01_Vorbericht_
Systematische-Behandlung-von-Parodontopathien.pdf.
38. Holtfreter B, Schützhold S, Kocher T. Is periodontitis
prevalence declining? A review of the current literature. Curr
Oral Health Rep. 2014;1(4):251-61. doi: 10.1007/s40496-
014-0032-9.
39. Benzian H, Williams D. THE CHALLENGE OF ORAL DISEASE.
A call for global action. FDI World Dental Federation. FDI
World Dental Federation; 2015. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4808986
40. Rädel VM, Bohm S. Zahnreport 2017 Schriftenreihe zur
Gesundheitsanalyse. BARMER; 2017.
© 2023 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The field of implant dentistry education is rapidly evolving as new technologies permit innovative methods to teach the fundamentals of implant dentistry. Methods: Literature from the fields of active learning, blended learning, augmented reality, artificial intelligence, haptics, and mixed reality were reviewed and combined with the experience and opinions of expert authors. Both positive and negative aspects of the learning methods are presented. Results and conclusion: The fundamental objectives of teaching and learning remain unchanged, yet the opportunities to reach larger audiences and integrate their learning into active experiences are evolving due to the introduction of new teaching and learning methodologies. The ability to reach a global audience has never been more apparent. Nevertheless, as much as new technology can be alluring, each new method comes with unique limitations.
Article
Full-text available
Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2017 (GBD 2017) includes a comprehensive assessment of incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability (YLDs) for 354 causes in 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Previous GBD studies have shown how the decline of mortality rates from 1990 to 2016 has led to an increase in life expectancy, an ageing global population, and an expansion of the non-fatal burden of disease and injury. These studies have also shown how a substantial portion of the world's population experiences non-fatal health loss with considerable heterogeneity among different causes, locations, ages, and sexes. Ongoing objectives of the GBD study include increasing the level of estimation detail, improving analytical strategies, and increasing the amount of high-quality data. Methods We estimated incidence and prevalence for 354 diseases and injuries and 3484 sequelae. We used an updated and extensive body of literature studies, survey data, surveillance data, inpatient admission records, outpatient visit records, and health insurance claims, and additionally used results from cause of death models to inform estimates using a total of 68 781 data sources. Newly available clinical data from India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Nepal, China, Brazil, Norway, and Italy were incorporated, as well as updated claims data from the USA and new claims data from Taiwan (province of China) and Singapore. We used DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression tool, as the main method of estimation, ensuring consistency between rates of incidence, prevalence, remission, and cause of death for each condition. YLDs were estimated as the product of a prevalence estimate and a disability weight for health states of each mutually exclusive sequela, adjusted for comorbidity. We updated the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary development indicator of income per capita, years of schooling, and total fertility rate. Additionally, we calculated differences between male and female YLDs to identify divergent trends across sexes. GBD 2017 complies with the Guidelines for Accurate and Transparent Health Estimates Reporting. Findings Globally, for females, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and haemoglobinopathies and haemolytic anaemias in both 1990 and 2017. For males, the causes with the greatest age-standardised prevalence were oral disorders, headache disorders, and tuberculosis including latent tuberculosis infection in both 1990 and 2017. In terms of YLDs, low back pain, headache disorders, and dietary iron deficiency were the leading Level 3 causes of YLD counts in 1990, whereas low back pain, headache disorders, and depressive disorders were the leading causes in 2017 for both sexes combined. All-cause age-standardised YLD rates decreased by 3·9% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 3·1–4·6) from 1990 to 2017; however, the all-age YLD rate increased by 7·2% (6·0–8·4) while the total sum of global YLDs increased from 562 million (421–723) to 853 million (642–1100). The increases for males and females were similar, with increases in all-age YLD rates of 7·9% (6·6–9·2) for males and 6·5% (5·4–7·7) for females. We found significant differences between males and females in terms of age-standardised prevalence estimates for multiple causes. The causes with the greatest relative differences between sexes in 2017 included substance use disorders (3018 cases [95% UI 2782–3252] per 100 000 in males vs s1400 [1279–1524] per 100 000 in females), transport injuries (3322 [3082–3583] vs 2336 [2154–2535]), and self-harm and interpersonal violence (3265 [2943–3630] vs 5643 [5057–6302]). Interpretation Global all-cause age-standardised YLD rates have improved only slightly over a period spanning nearly three decades. However, the magnitude of the non-fatal disease burden has expanded globally, with increasing numbers of people who have a wide spectrum of conditions. A subset of conditions has remained globally pervasive since 1990, whereas other conditions have displayed more dynamic trends, with different ages, sexes, and geographies across the globe experiencing varying burdens and trends of health loss. This study emphasises how global improvements in premature mortality for select conditions have led to older populations with complex and potentially expensive diseases, yet also highlights global achievements in certain domains of disease and injury.
Article
Full-text available
A classification for peri‐implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, peri‐implantitis, and soft‐ and hard‐tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri‐implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri‐implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri‐implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri‐implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri‐implant mucositis. Peri‐implantitis is a plaque‐associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri‐implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri‐implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long‐term health of the peri‐implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day‐to‐day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease‐surveillance studies for peri‐implant health, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant‐supported prosthesis.
Article
Purpose Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS) has an expansive scope, with myriad diagnoses treated by practicing surgeons. Patients and referring providers are increasingly turning to web-based sources to find information about clinical conditions prior to consultations or in conjunction with ongoing care. The purpose of this study was to examine the current trends of public interest of OMS procedures, as assessed by online search trends. Methods A cross-sectional study of internet search data obtained via Google Trends (GT) was conducted. Data were collected using GT for OMS-related search terms between January 2004 and May 2019. Search terms used in the analysis were “wisdom teeth,” “temporomandibular joint,” “dental implants,” “jaw surgery,” “jaw fracture,” “facial trauma,” and “facial cosmetic surgery” as defined to be the core surgical aspects of OMS based on public awareness campaigns sponsored by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Relative search volumes, trends over time, geographic trends, and seasonal trends were analyzed. For all analyses, a p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. Results Overall search volume trends for OMS procedures showed an increase over time, with seasonal and geographic trends. “Wisdom teeth” was the most searched term and had the greatest increase in search volume over time. “Facial trauma” was the least searched term with no appreciable trend over time. Geographical search volume was greatest in the United States. Seasonal changes were most apparent with searches for “wisdom teeth” and “jaw surgery.” Conclusions Analysis of GT data demonstrates substantial interest in core OMS procedures, with seasonal variations noted for certain areas of practice (wisdom teeth and jaw surgery) and consistent interest in other areas (facial cosmetic surgery, dental implant reconstruction, and temporomandibular disorders). The use of GT data may be a powerful tool for predicting demand for OMS services and for public education campaigns.
Article
The aim of this study was to assess nationwide trends in the exposure of dental students to periodontal and implant surgical procedures and to evaluate the potential factors that influence these clinical experiences. A 19-item questionnaire was sent to all 64 directors of predoctoral periodontics in U.S. dental schools. In addition to gathering information on the percentage of students who perform surgical periodontics or implant placement procedures in each program, data on student research groups, periodontics residency programs, and periodontics faculty practices were collected. A total of 33 responses were received, for a response rate of 51.5%. Among the responding institutions, 97% and 45.5% allowed dental students to perform periodontal and dental implant placement surgeries, respectively, although only 26.4% and 15.2% of the dental class ended up performing periodontal and dental implant placement surgeries, respectively. Crown lengthening was the most commonly reported (84.8%) periodontal surgical procedure performed by dental students. A negative correlation was found between the presence of a periodontics residency program and dental students' placing dental implants, while the size of the residency program positively correlated with dental students' placing dental implants. Overall, a wide variation in the exposure of dental students to periodontal and dental implant placement surgical experiences was found. Future surveys should assess clinical procedures performed in other specialties to gain a broader picture of the experience students are gaining in these areas.
Article
Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are clinically associated with inflammation of soft tissue around implants; however, peri-implantitis is associated with radiographic bone loss. Recently a new classification scheme—peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant soft-tissue and hard-tissue deficiencies—was introduced. Although various clinical interventions to treat peri-implant diseases have been suggested, early diagnosis and treatment is the key to successful outcomes. Clinicians can select nonsurgical or surgical techniques according to the clinical parameters present, although surgical intervention seems to be more effective in treating peri-implantitis. The best approach to treat peri-implantitis remains controversial.
Article
Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to assess the bias in estimating the prevalence of periodontitis due to partial-mouth periodontal examination protocols (PMPE) and to relate the severity and extent of periodontal damage to periodontitis misclassification when applying case definitions by Centres of Disease Control and Prevention and American Academy of Periodontology (CDC/AAP). Materials and methods: A full-mouth periodontal examination (FMPE) was performed in 721 adults living in North Italy to identify moderate and severe periodontitis. These results were compared with those obtained with two PMPE protocols analyzing two interproximal sites on all teeth (fMB-DL) or four interproximal sites in two random diagonal quadrants (pMDB-MDL). Results: Both PMPE systems estimated the prevalence of moderate periodontitis with limited bias (−2.79% for pMDB-MDL and −3.49% for fMB-DL), whereas produced larger relative biases for severe periodontitis (−28.74% versus − 14.55%). The percentage of under-recognition of existing periodontal disease was 8.9% under fMB-DL and 15.5% under pMDB-MDL. The diagnosis of moderate and severe periodontal disease was correctly assigned to individuals with on average 8% and 30% of pathological sites, respectively. Conclusion: These findings suggest that PMPE systems provide high level of bias when using CDC/AAP case definitions.
Article
Objectives: This survey aimed to evaluate whether periodontal education and assessment in undergraduate dental curricula amongst the member countries of the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) follow the competency-based curricular guidelines and recommendations developed by the Association for Dental Education in Europe. Materials and methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire was emailed to 244 dental institutes amongst the 24 EFP member countries between November 2014 and July 2015. Results: Data were received from 16 (66.7%) EFP member countries. Out of 117 responding dental institutes, 76 (64.95%) were included as valid responders. In most of the institutes (86.3%), a minimum set of competencies in periodontology was taken into account when constructing their dental education programmes. Out of 76 responders, 98.1% included lecture-based, 74.1% case-based and 57.1% problem-based teaching in their periodontal curricula, whilst a minority (15.9%) also used other methods. A similar pattern was also seen in the time allocation for these four educational methods, that is, the highest proportion (51.8%) was dedicated to lecture-based teaching and only a small proportion (5.7%) to other methods. Periodontal competencies and skills were most frequently assessed by clinical grading on clinic, multiple-choice examination (written examination) and oral examination, whereas competency tests and self-assessment were rarely used. Only in 11 (14.5%) cases, access flap procedures were performed by students. Conclusion: Great diversity in teaching methodology amongst the surveyed schools was demonstrated, and thus, to harmonise undergraduate periodontal education and assessment across Europe, a minimum set of recommendations could be developed and disseminated by the EFP.
Article
Background: While information on the prevalence of peri-implantitis is available, data describing onset and progression of the disease are limited. Material & methods: A 9-year follow-up examination of 596 randomly selected implant-carrying individuals identified 62 patients with moderate/severe peri-implantitis. Longitudinal assessments of peri-implant marginal bone levels were used to construct a statistical model with bone loss as the dependent variable. A multilevel growth model estimated the pattern of bone loss for each implant/patient. Onset of peri-implantitis was determined by evaluating the cumulative percentage of implants/patients presenting with estimated bone loss at each year following prosthesis delivery. Results: The analysis showed a non-linear, accelerating pattern of bone loss at the 105 affected implants. The onset of peri-implantitis occurred early, and 52% and 66% of implants presented with bone loss of >0.5 mm at years 2 and 3, respectively. 70% and 81% of subjects presented with ≥1 implants with bone loss of >0.5 mm at years 2 and 3, respectively. Conclusions: It is suggested that peri-implantitis progresses in a non-linear, accelerating pattern and that, for the majority of cases, the onset occurs within 3 years of function. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
PurposeTo provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. Materials and Methods The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. ResultsA set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. Conclusions The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.