• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.52 no.7
• /
• pp.408-415
• /
• 2014

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory lesions, which include peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Peri-implant mucositis is described as the presence of inflammation in the mucosa around implants without any bone loss. By contrast, in peri-implantitis, besides the inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa, loss of supporting bone is also seen. Diagnosis of peri-implant diseases require the use of gentle probing(0.2 ~ 0.3N) to identify the presence of bleeding on probing, probing depth and suppuration, both signs of clinical inflammation. Radiographs are required to detect loss of supporting bone. Baseline probing measurements and high quality, long cone periapical radiographs should be obtained once the restoration of the implant is completed to make possible longitudinal monitoring of peri-implant tissue.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.145-156
• /
• 2023

Purpose: The significance of keratinized tissue for peri-implant health has been emphasized. However, there is an absence of clinical evidence for the use of a xenogeneic collagen matrix (XCM) to manage peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes after keratinized tissue augmentation using an XCM for the management of peri-implant diseases. Methods: Twelve implants (5 with peri-implant mucositis and 7 with peri-implantitis) in 10 patients were included in this study. Non-surgical treatments were first performed, but inflammation persisted in all implant sites. The implant sites all showed a lack of keratinized mucosa (KM) and vestibular depth (VD). Apically positioned flaps with XCM application were performed. Bone augmentation was simultaneously performed on peri-implantitis sites with an intrabony defect (>3 mm). The following clinical parameters were measured: the probing pocket depth (PPD), modified sulcular bleeding index (mSBI), suppuration (SUP), keratinized mucosal height (KMH), and VD. Results: There were no adverse healing events during the follow-up visits (18±4.6 months). The final KMHs and VDs were 4.34±0.86 mm and 8.0±4.05 mm, respectively, for the sites with peri-implant mucositis and 3.29±0.86 mm and 6.5±1.91 mm, respectively, for the sites with peri-implantitis. Additionally, the PPD and mSBI significantly decreased, and none of the implants presented with SUP. Conclusions: Keratinized tissue augmentation using an XCM for sites with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was effective for increasing the KMH and VD and decreasing peri-implant inflammation.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.46 no.1
• /
• pp.35-45
• /
• 2016

Purpose: Porphyromonas gingivalis fimA is a virulence factor associated with periodontal diseases, but its role in the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between the condition of peri-implant tissue and the distribution of P. gingivalis fimA genotypes in Koreans using a new primer. Methods: A total of 248 plaque samples were taken from the peri-implant sulci of 184 subjects. The control group consisted of sound implants with a peri-implant probing depth (PD) of 5 mm or less with no bleeding on probing (BOP). Test group I consisted of implants with a peri-implant PD of 5 mm or less and BOP, and test group II consisted of implants with a peri-implant PD of more than 5 mm and BOP. DNA was extracted from each sample and analyzed a using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with P. gingivalis -specific primers, followed by an additional PCR assay to differentiate the fimA genotypes in P. gingivalis-positive subjects. Results: The Prevalence of P. gingivalis in each group did not significantly differ (P>0.05). The most predominant fimA genotype in all groups was type II. The prevalence of type Ib fimA was significantly greater in test group II than in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusions: The fimA type Ib genotype of P. gingivalis was found to play a critical role in the destruction of peri-implant tissue, suggesting that it may be a distinct risk factor for periimplantitis.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.46 no.4
• /
• pp.266-276
• /
• 2016

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to retrospectively investigate the influence of potential risk indicators on the development of peri-implant disease. Methods: Overall, 103 patients referred for implant treatment from 2000 to 2012 were randomly enrolled. The study sample consisted of 421 conventional-length (>6 mm) non-turned titanium implants that were evaluated clinically and radiographically according to preestablished clinical and patient-related parameters by a single investigator. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis rank test and a logistic regression model were used for the statistical analysis of the recorded data at the implant level. Results: The diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was made for 173 (41.1%) and 19 (4.5%) implants, respectively. Age (${\geq}65$ years), patient adherence (professional hygiene recalls <2/year) and the presence of plaque were associated with higher peri-implant probing-depth values and bleeding-on-probing scores. The logistic regression analysis indicated that age (P=0.001), patient adherence (P=0.03), the absence of keratinized tissue (P=0.03), implants placed in pristine bone (P=0.04), and the presence of peri-implant soft-tissue recession (P=0.000) were strongly associated with the event of peri-implantitis. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, patients aged ${\geq}65$ years and non-adherent subjects were more prone to develop peri-implant disease. Therefore, early diagnosis and a systematic maintenance-care program are essential for maintaining peri-implant tissue health, especially in older patients.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.44 no.1
• /
• pp.39-47
• /
• 2014

Purpose: Peri-implantitis, a clinical term describing the inflammatory process that affects the soft and hard tissues around an osseointegrated implant, may lead to peri-implant pocket formation and loss of supporting bone. However, this imprecise definition has resulted in a wide variation of the reported prevalence; ${\geq}10%$ of implants and 20% of patients over a 5- to 10-year period after implantation has been reported. The individual reporting of bone loss, bleeding on probing, pocket probing depth and inconsistent recording of results has led to this variation in the prevalence. Thus, a specific definition of peri-implantitis is needed. This paper describes the vast variation existing in the definition of peri-implantitis and suggests a logical way to record the degree and prevalence of the condition. The evaluation of bone loss must be made within the concept of natural physiological bony remodelling according to the initial peri-implant hard and soft tissue damage and actual definitive load of the implant. Therefore, the reason for bone loss must be determined as either a result of the individual osseous remodelling process or a response to infection. Methods: The most current Papers and Consensus of Opinion describing peri-implantitis are presented to illustrate the dilemma that periodontologists and implant surgeons are faced with when diagnosing the degree of the disease process and the necessary treatment regime that will be required. Results: The treatment of peri-implantitis should be determined by its severity. A case of advanced peri-implantitis is at risk of extreme implant exposure that results in a loss of soft tissue morphology and keratinized gingival tissue. Conclusions: Loss of bone at the implant surface may lead to loss of bone at any adjacent natural teeth or implants. Thus, if early detection of peri-implantitis has not occurred and the disease process progresses to advanced peri-implantitis, the compromised hard and soft tissues will require extensive, skill-sensitive regenerative procedures, including implantotomy, established periodontal regenerative techniques and alternative osteotomy sites.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.50 no.3
• /
• pp.183-196
• /
• 2020

Purpose: This practice-based cross-sectional study aimed to investigate whether common risk indicators for peri-implant diseases were associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in patients undergoing supportive implant therapy (SIT) at least 5 years after implant restoration. Methods: Patients exclusively restored with a single implant type were included. Probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration, and radiographic bone loss (RBL) were assessed around implants. The case definitions were as follows: peri-implant mucositis: PPD ≥4 mm, BOP, no RBL; and peri-implantitis: PPD ≥5 mm, BOP, RBL ≥3.5 mm. Possible risk indicators were compared between patients with and without mucositis and peri-implantitis using the Fisher exact test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, as well as a multiple logistic regression model for variables showing significance (P<0.05). Results: Eighty-four patients with 169 implants (observational period: 5.8±0.86 years) were included. A patient-based prevalence of 52% for peri-implant mucositis and 18% for peri-implantitis was detected. The presence of 3 or more implants (odds ratio [OR], 4.43; 95 confidence interval [CI], 1.36-15.05; P=0.0136) was significantly associated with an increased risk for mucositis. Smoking was significantly associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 5.89; 95% CI, 1.27-24.58; P=0.0231), while the presence of keratinized mucosa around implants was associated with a lower risk for peri-implantitis (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.25; P<0.001). Conclusions: The number of implants should be considered in strategies to prevent mucositis. Furthermore, smoking and the absence of keratinized mucosa were the strongest risk indicators for peri-implantitis in patients undergoing SIT in the present study.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.57 no.12
• /
• pp.758-767
• /
• 2019

The classification of periodontal disease in 1999 has been widely used for determining a diagnosis, establishing a treatment plan, and evaluating the prognosis of the patient with periodontal disease. However, scientific evidence from many studies indicates the need for a new classification system for periodontal and peri-implant disease. Summary at 2017 world workshop as follows: 1) Periodontal health and peri-implant health was defined; 2) Chronic periodontitis and aggressive periodontitis were unified as periodontitis; 3) Periodontitis was further classified by staging and grading to reflect disease severity and management complexity, rate of disease progression, respectively; 4) Periodontal disease as manifestation of systemic disease is based on the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) code; 5) Periodontal biotype and biologic width was replaced to periodontal phenotype and supracrestal tissue attachment, respectively; 6) The excessive occlusal force was replaced by a traumatic occlusal force; 7) ≥3 mm of radiographic bone loss, ≥6 mm of pocket probing depth and bleeding on probing indicates peri-implantitis in the absence of radiograph at final prosthesis delivery.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.54 no.3
• /
• pp.161-176
• /
• 2024

Purpose: Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years. Methods: The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models. Results: The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI. Conclusions: In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.52 no.6
• /
• pp.509-521
• /
• 2022

Purpose: Systemic health has a profound effect on dental treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate peri-implant bone loss and health screening data to discover factors that may influence peri-implant diseases. Methods: This study analyzed the panoramic X-rays of patients undergoing health screenings at the Health Promotion Center at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital in 2018, to investigate the relationship between laboratory test results and dental data. The patients' physical data, such as height, weight, blood pressure, hematological and urine analysis data, smoking habits, number of remaining teeth, alveolar bone level, number of implants, and degree of bone loss around the implant, were analyzed for correlations. Their associations with glycated hemoglobin, glucose, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), creatinine, and severity of periodontitis were evaluated using univariate and multivariate regression analysis. Results: In total, 2,264 patients opted in for dental health examinations, of whom 752 (33.2%) had undergone dental implant treatment. These 752 patients had a total of 2,658 implants, and 129 (17.1%) had 1 or more implants with peri-implant bone loss of 2 mm or more. The number of these implants was 204 (7%). Body mass index and smoking were not correlated with peri-implant bone loss. Stepwise multivariate regression analysis revealed that the severity of periodontal bone loss (moderate bone loss: odds ratio [OR], 3.154; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.175-8.475 and severe bone loss: OR, 7.751; 95% CI, 3.003-20) and BUN (OR, 1.082; 95% CI, 1.027-1.141) showed statistically significant predictive value. The severity of periodontitis showed greater predictive value than the biochemical parameters of blood glucose, renal function, and liver function. Conclusions: The results of this study showed that periodontal bone loss was a predictor of peri-implant bone loss, suggesting that periodontal disease should be controlled before dental treatment. Diligent maintenance care is recommended for patients with moderate to severe periodontal bone loss.

• 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.