• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.35 no.4
• /
• pp.907-919
• /
• 2005

Porphyromonas gingivalis is a gram negative. black-pigmented anaerobe, associated with periodontitis & peri-implantitis. Fimbriae(fimA) of P. gingivalis are filamentous components on the cell surface and important in the colonization and invasion of periodontal tissue. But all P. gnigivalis strains don't have equal pathogenicity, inequality among strains originates from different fimA genotype. P. gnigivalis fimA gene encoding fimbrillin(structural subunit of fimbriae) has been classified into 5 genotypes(types I to V) based on the nucleotide sequences. In the present study, we examined the prevalence of these fimA genotypes in patients with dental implant and the relationship between prevalence of these genotypes and a condition of peri-implant tissue. Dental plaque specimens obtained from 189 peri-implant sulci of 97 patients with dental implants were analyzed by 16S rRNA fimA gene-directed PCR assay. P. gingivalis were detected in 86.2% of the alll samples. Among the P. gingivalis-positive samples, a significant difference in the occurrence of typeII was observed between test and the two control groups. In two control groups, typeII fimA were detected in 6.3%(PD<5mm/BOP-). 18.7%(PD<5mm/BOP+). In the test $group(PD{\geqq}5mm/BOP+)$, type II fimA genotype were detected most frequently in 50.0% . And a correlation between specific fimA types and peri-implantitis was found in $typeII(R^2=l.105)$. These results suggest that P. gingivalis strains that possess typeII fimA are gradually increased, as a condition of peri-implant tissue is getting complicated and are closely associated with peri-implant health status. We speculate that these organisms be involved in peri-implantitis

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.46 no.3
• /
• pp.136-151
• /
• 2016

Peri-implant disease is a serious problem that plagues today's dentistry, both in terms of therapy and epidemiology. With the expansion of the practice of implantology and an increasing number of implants placed annually, the frequency of peri-implant disease has greatly expanded. Its clinical manifestations, in the absence of a globally established classification, are peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, the counterparts of gingivitis and periodontitis, respectively. However, many doubts remain about its features. Official diagnostic criteria, globally recognized by the dental community, have not yet been introduced. The latest studies using metagenomic methods are casting doubt on the assumption of microbial equivalence between periodontal and peri-implant crevices. Research on most of the features of peri-implant disease remains at an early stage; moreover, there is not a commonly accepted treatment for it. In any case, although the evidence so far collected is limited, we need to be aware of the current state of the science regarding this topic to better understand and ultimately prevent this disease.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.13-19
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine whether a previous peri-implantitis site can affect osseointegration, by comparing implant placement at a site where peri-implantitis was present and at a normal bone site. A second aim of this study was to identify the tissue and bone reaction after treating the contaminated implant surface to determine the optimal treatment for peri-implant diseases. Methods: A peri-implant mucositis model for dogs was prepared to determine the optimal treatment option for peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis. The implants were inserted partially to a length of 6 mm. The upper 4 mm part of the dental implants was exposed to the oral environment. Simple exposure for 2 weeks contaminated the implant surface. After 2 weeks, the implants were divided into three groups: untreated, swabbed with saline, and swabbed with $H_2O_2$. Three implants from each group were placed to the full length in the same spot. The other three implants were placed fully into newly prepared bone. After eight weeks of healing, the animals were sacrificed. Ground sections, representing the mid-buccal-lingual plane, were prepared for histological analysis. The analysis was evaluated clinically and histometrically. Results: The untreated implants and $H_2O_2$-swabbed implants showed gingival inflammation. Only the saline-swabbed implant group showed re-osseointegration and no gingival inflammation. There was no difference in regeneration height or bone-to-implant contact between in situ implant placement and implant placement in the new bone site. Conclusions: It can be concluded that cleaning with saline may be effective in implant decontamination. After implant surface decontamination, implant installation in a previous peri-implant diseased site may not interfere with osseointegration.

• 대한치주과학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 2009.05a
• /
• pp.23-23
• /
• 2009

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.30 no.3
• /
• pp.259-264
• /
• 2014

Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is defined as a clinically symptomatic periapical lesion. RPI is generally accompanied by symptoms of pain, tenderness, swelling and fistula. Several etiologic factors of RPI were possible, residual bacteria would be the main cause of RPI. Various treatment modalities have been introduced: debridement only or a combination of debridement with the grafting material accompanied by a detoxification of the infected implant surfaces, apicoectomy and so on. Although the definitive management methods remain undefined, many favorable clinical results of a treatment of RPI have been published. This case report introduces the 7-year long-term clinical result of the application the principle: implant surface detoxification using saline and chlorhexidine and guided bone regeneration with bone graft material and barrier membrane. If the implant was not mobile, it would be possible to treat RPI according to surgical approach and good results will be maintained over long term.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2004

It is improtant that performing prophylaxis procedure on an infected implant surface in order to treat peri-implantitis should not change the surface roughness and composition, so that the surface can be recovered to almost same condition as initial implant surface. This thesis, therefore, studied an effect of various oral hygiene instrument on implant surface. A surface roughness measurement instrument and an infection electron microscope were used to observe a change on surface. The purpose of this study was to obtain a clinical guidelines during implant care and peri-implantitis treatment. The result were as follows 1. Ra values (surface roughness value) at experimental group 1, group 2, and group 5 were increased significantly as compared with comparison group(p<0.05). 2. When compared experimental group 1 with each experimental groups at which prohylaxis procedure was performed, mean values of Ra at experimental group 2, group 3, group 6, and group 7 were decreased significantly(p<0.05). 3. Mean value of Ra was lowest at experimental group 2, and highest at experimental group 2, and highest at experimental group 5. 4. Analysis of SEM showed that was significant surface change at experimental group 2, group 3, group 4, group 5, and group 6 as compared with comparison group(X1000). 5. Analysis fo EDX showed that a quantity of Ti on surface for experimental group 6 was very similar to that for comparison group. In conclusion, air-powder abrasive and citric acid, plastic instrument are safe methods to use for performing prophylaxis procedure on implant care or for cleaning and sterilization process on treatment of peri-implantitis, based on the result that those method did not affect implant surface roughness and Ti composition.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.7 no.4
• /
• pp.338-342
• /
• 2015

PURPOSE. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ${\geq}3.5mm$) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken postoperative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS. The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION. Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.37 no.4
• /
• pp.259-267
• /
• 2021

Peri-implantitis, in which inflammation caused by plaque and biofilm on the implant surface spreads to the hard tissue, can be treated by decontamination of the implant surface and reconstruction of the lost hard tissue through surgical methods. We have described the management of 3 peri-implantitis cases by decontamination of the implant surface using a round titanium brush and regenerative therapy. All cases showed clinical improvements, and no further radiographic bone loss was observed during a 2-year follow-up. This treatment method can be effective for clinical improvement and bone regeneration. However, a longer follow-up period is necessary to support these outcomes.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.223-235
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. To compare the clinical outcomes of two types of implant restoration for posterior edentulous area, 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants and 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The data included 127 implant-supported fixed restorations in 85 patients: 37 restorations of 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants (2-IB), 37 restorations of 3 implant-supported splinted crowns (3-IC), and 53 single restorations (S) as controls. Peri-implantitis and mechanical complications that occurred for 14 years were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves and the multivariable Cox regression model were used to analyze the success and survival of implants. RESULTS. Peri-implantitis occurred in 28.4% of 2-IB group, 37.8% of 3-IC group, and 28.3% of S control group with no significant difference. According to the implant position, middle implants (P2) of the 3-IC group had the highest risk of peri-implantitis. The 3-IC group showed a lower mechanical complication rate (7.2%) than the 2-IB (16.2%) and S control group (20.8%). The cumulative success rate was 52.8% in S (control) group, 62.2% in 2-IB group, and 60.4% in 3-IC group. The cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in S (control) group, 98.6% in 2-IB group, and 95.5% in 3-IC group. There was no significant difference in the success and survival rate according to the restoration type. CONCLUSION. The restoration type was not associated with the success and survival of implants. The risk of mechanical complications was reduced in 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. However, the middle implants of the 3 implant-supported splinted crowns had a higher risk of peri-implantitis.

• Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• /
• v.35 no.2
• /
• pp.112-123
• /
• 2013

This study aims to investigate the clinical outcome following treatment of peri-implantitis lesions. Five subjects with 7 implants were treated with surgical approach. Four subjects with 6 implants were initially treated with non-surgical approach or hygiene control. However, inflammation was not resolved and more bone loss was found. Therefore, surgical treatment was performed. After surgical exposure of the defect, granulation tissue was removed and implant surface was treated using tetracycline and chlorhexidine. Then, the flaps were sutured. The wound healing was performed in a non-submerged mode. The present finding demonstrates stable results without progression of bone loss. In one subject, deep V shaped bone defect was filled with bone substitute (ICB, CanCellous Bone, Rockey Mountain Tissue Bank, USA), and resorbable membrane (Lyoplant$^{(R)}$, B.Braun Aesculap AG, Germany) was placed over the grafted defect and healing abutment was connected. However, the inflammation was not resolved and more bone loss was found. At one month after regenerative surgery, the implant was removed.