Rehabilitation of fully or partially edentulous patients with dental implants represents one of the most frequently used surgical procedures. The work of Branemark, who observed that a piece of titanium embedded in rabbit bone became firmly attached and difficult to remove, introduced the concept of osseointegration and revolutionized modern dentistry. Since then, an ever-growing need for improved implant materials towards enhanced material-tissue integration has emerged. There is a strong belief that nanoscale materials will produce a superior generation of implants with high efficiency, low cost, and high volume. The aim of this review is to explore the contribution of nanomaterials in implantology. A variety of nanomaterials have been proposed as potential candidates for implant surface customization. They can have inherent antibacterial properties, provide enhanced conditions for osseointegration, or act as reservoirs for biomolecules and drugs. Titania nanotubes alone or in combination with biological agents or drugs are used for enhanced tissue integration in dental implants. Regarding immunomodulation and in order to avoid implant rejection, titania nanotubes, graphene, and biopolymers have successfully been utilized, sometimes loaded with anti-inflammatory agents and extracellular vesicles. Peri-implantitis prevention can be achieved through the inherent antibacterial properties of metal nanoparticles and chitosan or hybrid coatings bearing antibiotic substances. For improved corrosion resistance various materials have been explored. However, even though these modifications have shown promising results, future research is necessary to assess their clinical behavior in humans and proceed to widespread commercialization.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults.
METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024.
METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy.
METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life.
RESULTS: We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

Current implant therapy is a frequently employed treatment for individuals who have lost teeth, as it offers functional and biological advantages over old prostheses. Concurrently, active exploration of intervention strategies aims to prevent the progression of peri-implant diseases and manage the existing peri-implant tissue damage. Indian Society of Periodontology has recognized the need for systematic documents to update the everyday clinical practice of general dental practitioners and has provided evidence-based consensus documents, namely good clinical practice recommendations from time to time to raise the oral health-related awareness and standards of oral health-care delivery across the country. The current clinical practice recommendations focused on peri-implant care to bridge the gap between academic theory and clinical practice by compiling evidence-based suggestions for preventing and treating peri-implant diseases. Twenty-eight subject experts across the country prepared these recommendations after a thorough literature review and group discussions. The document has been prepared in three sections covering peri-implant health and maintenance, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. It will be a quick and concise reference for oral implant practitioners in patient management. The guidelines provide distinct definitions, signs, and symptoms, treatment required; recall visit specifications for plausible clinical case situations, and home-care recommendations regarding maintaining peri-implant health. The document advocates combined efforts of oral implant practitioners and the population at large with evidence-based, integrated, and comprehensive peri-implant care. By providing accessible, applicable guidance, these guidelines would empower dental professionals to uphold the well-being of implant patients and ensure the long-term success of implant therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The presence of insufficient peri-implant supracrestal tissue height (STH) may increase marginal bone resorption. This study aims to evaluate the effect of STH on marginal bone level changes (ΔMBC) in platform-switching posterior implants placed crestally and subcrestally.
METHODS: A total of 80 implants were included in this study. There were two main groups in the study; STH≤2 mm (A) and STH> 2 mm (B) and four subgroups according to the implant placement level, crestally (I) and subcrestally (II): A-I, A-II, B-I, and B-II. Intraoperatively, STH and placement depths of implants were measured from mesial and distal aspects. The mesial and distal peri-implant marginal bone levels were measured on periapical radiographs at immediately (T0), 6 months (T1), 9 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) after functional loading, and the difference between the marginal bone levels was calculated as the ΔMBC.
RESULTS: Statistically significantly more mesial ΔMBC was detected in the A-I than in the B-I at the time of T0-T1. In the group with STH greater than 2 mm, the difference in ΔMBC between the crestally and subcrestally placements was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: This study was found that STH is effective at protecting the marginal bone in the early period, and in cases where the STH is insufficient, subcrestally placement may increase long-term implant success by preventing marginal bone loss from occurring beyond the implant shoulder. The clinical trial number is NCT05595746.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, it was demonstrated that an STH greater than 2 mm is important for marginal bone stabilization, regardless of crestal and subcrestal levels, and that subcrestally placement is beneficial in cases of insufficient STH.

UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted to identify the typical sites and patterns of peri-implant bone defects on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, as well as to evaluate the detectability of the identified bone defects on panoramic images.
UNASSIGNED: The study population included 114 patients with a total of 367 implant fixtures. CBCT images were used to assess the presence or absence of bone defects around each implant fixture at the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual sites. Based on the number of defect sites, the presentations of the peri-implant bone defects were categorized into 3 patterns: 1 site, 2 or 3 sites, and circumferential bone defects. Two observers independently evaluated the presence or absence of bone defects on panoramic images. The bone defect detection rate on these images was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 367 implants studied, 167 (45.5%) had at least 1 site with a confirmed bone defect. The most common type of defect was circumferential, affecting 107 of the 167 implants (64.1%). Implants were most frequently placed in the mandibular molar region. The prevalence of bone defects was greatest in the maxillary premolar and mandibular molar regions. The highest kappa value was associated with the mandibular premolar region.
UNASSIGNED: The typical bone defect pattern observed was a circumferential defect surrounding the implant. The detection rate was generally higher in the molar region than in the anterior region. However, the capacity to detect partial bone defects using panoramic imaging was determined to be poor.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this prospective cohort study is to evaluate the effect of peri-implant phenotype (PPh) on the severity of peri-implant diseases and the results of non-surgical mechanical treatment (NSMT), along with calprotectin (CLP) and MMP-8(matrix metalloproteinase-8) levels.
METHODS: 77 implants from 39 patients were included. The implants were categorized Group-1(peri-implant mucositis), Group-2(peri-implantitis).Baseline (0. Month-PrT) clinical parameters (PD, GI, PI, BOP, CAL) and radiographic bone loss were documented, and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected. Various intruments and methodologies were employed to assess PPh components (mucosa thickness, supracrestal tissue height, keratinized mucosa) and peri-implant attached mucosa (AM). NSMT was applied to diseased implant sites. All clinical parameters were reassessed again by taking PICF samples at the 6th month-after treatment (PT). In PICF samples obtained from both groups, MMP-8 and CLP levels were evaluated using the ELISA test.
RESULTS: PrT-PD,PrT-GI,PrT-CAL and PrT-BOP percentage values in Group-2 were significantly higher than Group-1.PrT-PD,PrTPI scores are significantly higher in thin biotype implants. All components of the PPh and AM were significantly lower in thin biotype. Intra-group time-dependent changes of MMP-8 and CLP were significant in both groups (p < 0.05). When the relationship between thin and thick biotype and biochemical parameters was evaluated, the change in PrT-PT didn\'t show a significant difference (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: PPh plays a role in influencing the severity of peri-implant diseases. However, the impact of phenotype on NSMT outcomes was similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The PPh should be considered when planning implant surgery.

Despite the high success rates of dental implants, peri-implantitis is currently the most common complication in dental implantology. Peri-implantitis has an inflammatory nature, it is associated with the accumulation of plaque in the peri-implant tissues, and its evolution can be progressive depending on various factors, comorbidities, and poor oral health. Prophylaxis and different treatment methods have been widely discussed in recent decades, and surgical and non-surgical techniques present both advantages and disadvantages. In this work, a literature review of different studies on the application of adjuvant treatments, such as local and systemic antibiotics and antiseptic treatments, was conducted. Positive outcomes have been found in the short (up to one year after treatment) and long term (up to ten years after treatment) with combined therapies. However, there is still a need to explore new therapies based on the use of advanced drug delivery systems for the effective treatment of peri-implantitis in the long term and without relapses. Hence, micro- and nanoparticles, implants, and injectable hydrogels, among others, should be considered in future peri-implantitis treatment with the aim of enhancing overall therapy outcomes.

Understanding the microbiological profiles of peri-implant conditions is crucial for developing effective preventive and therapeutic strategies. This narrative review analyzes the microbial profiles associated with healthy peri-implant sites, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis, along with related microbiological sampling and analyses. Healthy peri-implant sites are predominantly colonized by Streptococcus, Rothia, Neisseria, and Corynebacterium species, in addition to Gram-positive cocci and facultatively anaerobic rods, forming a stable community that prevents pathogenic colonization and maintains microbial balance. In contrast, peri-implant mucositis shows increased microbial diversity, including both health-associated and pathogenic bacteria such as red and orange complex bacteria, contributing to early tissue inflammation. Peri-implantitis is characterized by even greater microbial diversity and a complex pathogenic biofilm. Predominant pathogens include Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, Fusobacterium nucleatum, and unique species like Filifactor alocis and Fretibacterium fastidiosum. Additionally, less common species such as Staphylococcus and Enterobacteriaceae, contributing to disease progression through biofilm formation and increased inflammatory response, along with EBV and human cytomegalovirus with a still not defined role, and Candida albicans contribute to disease progression through biofilm formation, immune modulation, and synergistic inter-kingdom interactions. Future research should standardize diagnostic criteria, employ advanced molecular techniques, integrate microbial data with clinical factors, and highlight inter-kingdom interactions.

Background/Objectives: Implant treatment in patients who require teeth extraction due to periodontitis presents a significant challenge. The consideration of peri-implantitis is crucial when planning the placement of dental implants. The predictability of implant treatment relies on the suitability of both hard and soft tissue quality. The aim of this article is to present a case report demonstrating a secure treatment protocol for implant procedures in patients with periodontitis requiring the extraction of all teeth, soft tissue management targeted at increasing the keratinized mucosa zone, and the provision of a reliable prosthetic solution. The secondary objective is to review the relevant literature regarding the significance of keratinized mucosa surrounding dental implants and its association with the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Case presentation: A 65-year-old female with generalized periodontitis, stage IV grade C and very poor oral hygiene came for treatment and rehabilitation of the lower jaw. CBCT revealed periodontal lesions and labio-lingual ridge dimensions in the region of teeth 34-44 from 8.0 to 10.2 mm. The first surgery included teeth extraction and periodontal lesions enucleation with simultaneous placement of four implants in the positions of teeth 32, 34, 42, 44. The second-stage surgery involved increasing the keratinized mucosa using two free gingival grafts. Conclusions: The present case report described the treatment process of the patient with periodontitis, including immediate implantation in the infected region, soft tissue augmentation using free gingival grafts and the ultimate placement of a bar-retained overdenture for final restoration. After two years of observation, despite questionable hygiene, no symptoms of gingival inflammation were detected. Furthermore, there is limited information in the literature regarding the correlation between inadequate keratinized gingiva and the occurrence of peri-implantitis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to connect peri-implantitis to cardiovascular diseases, following the association found between periodontitis and cardiovascular conditions in recent years.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science online databases were searched up to June 2023, with the exclusion criteria being research written in a language other than English. The MeSH search items were as follows: [\"peri-implant health OR peri-implantitis OR peri-implant mucositis OR peri-implant disease\"] AND [\"cardiovascular diseases\"]. Patient/population (P), intervention (I), comparison (C), outcome (O) framework questions were followed to identify the clinical evidence for the systematic review. Only clinical studies that used a control group to compare the relationship between cardiovascular diseases and peri-implantitis were selected.
RESULTS: A total of 118 studies were identified through electronic search of the keywords. After removing duplicates, there were 76 records to be screened. Upon exclusion of ineligible titles and abstracts, 27 studies remained for evaluation. Finally, 23 studies were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, leaving 4 studies to be included in the qualitative analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found there is a linear association between mucosal/gingival inflammation and carotid intima-media thickness test (c-IMT) values. Peri-implant mucosal inflammation could be a contributor to the vascular disease burden of an individual; further specific clinical studies should be performed in order to demonstrate this connection.