Background : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
Peri-implantitis is caused by a bacterial challenge and characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant soft tissues and a progressive loss of supporting bone [1, 2]. Consequently, its treatment is cause-related and primarily aimed at arresting disease progression [3].
Based on the currently available evidence, non-surgical mechanical debridement alone seems to have a limited efficacy for the management of peri-implantitis [4, 5]. While adjunctive (i.e., local antibiotics, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy) or alternative measures (e.g. air abrasive devices, Er:YAG laser monotherapy) may improve the efficacy of non-surgical therapy, the obtained clinical outcomes appeared to be limited to a period of 6 to 12 months and were particularly compromised at advanced defect sites [4, 5]. In contrast, the efficacy of treatment was commonly improved subsequent to a surgical intervention combining open flap debridement either with adjunctive resective (e.g., apical flap, osteoplasty, implantoplasty (IP)), augmentative (e.g., bone fillers/autografts, guided bone regeneration), or a combination of resective (i.e., IP) and augmentative (refers to as combined therapy) measures [6]. Nevertheless, the reported outcomes following surgical therapy of peri-implantitis varied considerably and appeared to be influenced by a variety of different prognostic factors, such as the configuration of the bony defect [7], the physicochemical properties of the bone filler [8, 9], or the surface characteristics of the affected implants [10, 11].
Previous clinical data provide some evidence that ridge augmentation using either autogenous bone or different bone filler materials may constitute a potential risk indicator for the onset of peri-implant diseases [12, 13]. Consequently, it might be hypothesized that initial bone-grafting procedures at implant site may also influence the effectiveness of peri-implantitis treatment. Therefore, this retrospective analysis aimed at comparing the clinical outcomes following combined surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at initially grafted and non-grafted (i.e., pristine) implant sites.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Background : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Methods : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [1]
- Methods : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [2]
- Methods : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [3]
- Results : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [1]
- Results : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [2]
- Discussion : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [1]
- Discussion : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [2]
- Conclusions : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- References : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [1]
- References : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [2]
- References : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis [3]
- Funding : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Author information : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Ethics declarations : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Rights and permissions : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- About this article : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Table 1 Implant site characteristics : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Table 2 Disease resolution between the non-grafted and grafted implant sites : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Table 3 Reduction of mean BOP (%) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Table 4 Reduction of maximum PD (mm) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis at grafted and non-grafted implant sites: a retrospective analysis
- Fig. 1. Combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis at respective defect sites: class I: intrabony component showing either a buccal dehiscency with a semicircular component (Ib) or a buccal dehiscency with a cicumferential component (Ic). Class II: supracrestal component. The red rectangles indicate the surface areas undergoing an implantoplasty, while the green areas indicate the defect areas undergoing augmentative therapy : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implant
- Fig. 2. Box plot depicting no significant differences of the baseline maximum PD values between the grafted and non-grafted patient groups (p = 0.353) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implant
- Fig. 3. Dumbbell—dot plots illustrating (a) disease resolution and no resolution at non-grafted and grafted sites at the patient level analysis with no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.579). Patents with improvement, deterioration, and no improvement following the treatment based on the max PD changes are depicted; (b) disease resolution and no resolution at the implants in non-grafted and grafted sites. Significantly higher disease resolution in the grafted implant group (p = 0.048) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implant
- Fig. 4. Box plot presenting mean BOP reduction between the two patient groups (grafted and non-grafted) with no significant difference (p = 0.778) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implant
- Fig. 5. Box plot illustrating maximum PD reduction between the grafted and non-grafted patient groups that did not reach a significant difference (p = 0.968) : Clinical outcomes following surgical treatment of peri-implant