OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a clinical effect of Lactobacillus reuteri in supportive periodontal therapy can already be detected with a minimum dose of one tablet a day and a minimum observation and intake period of 3 months.
METHODS: 28 patients with stage III and IV periodontitis undergoing periodontal follow-up were randomly divided into two groups receiving a lozenge containing L. reuteri or a placebo preparation daily for 90 days. After 0, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the parameters bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque control record (PCR), periodontal probing depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded in the test and control groups.
RESULTS: The results sed a different effect of L. reuteri on the respective patients. In certain patients, clinical parameters worsened or remained largely unchanged. However, in other patients, there were positive effects on the clinical parameters. In the overall analysis, BoP was the only clinical parameter that was statistically significantly reduced.
CONCLUSIONS: The oral administration of one lozenge per day for 3 months with L. reuteri in supportive periodontal therapy might have a positive influence on clinical parameters in supportive periodontal therapy, depending on the individual.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate site-related changes in periodontal pocket depth (PPD) after non-surgical periodontal therapy and to identify predictors for PPD changes in a retrospective patient data analysis.
METHODS: PPD, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, tooth mobility (TM), furcation involvement (FI), abutment status, adherence to supportive periodontal care (SPC) and SPC follow-ups were obtained from fully documented patient data before periodontal therapy (baseline, T0), after active periodontal therapy (APT, T1) and during SPC (T2). PPD changes were classified into deteriorated or unchanged/improved at the site level. Multi-level logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors influencing PPD changes during SPC.
RESULTS: This retrospective study included 51 females and 65 males (mean T0 age: 54.8 ± 10.1 years, 25 smokers, 12 diabetics) suffering from Stage III/IV periodontitis. Evaluation outcome: T0/16,044 sampling sites/2674 teeth; T1/15,636/2606; T2/14,754/2459. During 9.0 ± 2.3 years SPC, PPD decreased (-1.33 ± 0.70 mm) by 21.8% of the sites, remained unchanged by 41.4% and increased (1.40 ± 0.78 mm) by 36.8%. Distopalatal FI (p < .001, odds ratio [OR]: 0.252, 95% confidence interval [CI] for OR: 0.118-0.540), residual pockets (p < .001, OR: 0.503, 95% CI: 0.429-0.590) and TM Degrees I-III (Degree I: p = .002, OR: 0.765, 95% CI: 0.646-0.905; Degree II: p = .006, OR: 0.658, 95% CI: 0.489-0.886; Degree III: p = .023, OR: 0.398, 95% CI: 0.180-0.879) correlated significantly with increasing PPD.
CONCLUSIONS: Over 75% of PPD remained unchanged or increased during SPC. Distopalatal FI, TM Degrees I-III and residual pockets after APT lead to worsening of periodontal pockets.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of hyaluronic acid (HyA) application as adjunct to re-instrumentation of residual pockets in patients undergoing regular supportive periodontal care (SPC).
METHODS: Chronic periodontitis patients (stage III and IV, grade B and C) with 4 interproximal residual pockets were randomly assigned to the test (HyA gel) or control (saline) group. After subgingival instrumentation, test or control substance was applied subgingivally, then daily supragingivally for 3 months, and if required a second time after subgingival re-instrumentation after 3 months. Clinical and patient reported outcome parameters were recorded every 3 months for 12 months. Pocket closure [probing pocket depth (PPD) ≤ 4mm with absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) at PPD = 4mm] was the main outcome parameter.
RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (221 experimental sites) were analysed. Pocket closure was achieved in 56.8 and 46.6% of the experimental sites in the test and control group, respectively (p > 0.05), while median PPD and PPD distribution (< 5mm/5mm/ > 5mm) differed significantly between groups in favour of the test group, at 12 months. Further, significantly fewer sites in the HyA group required re-instrumentation at 3 months, and sites in the HyA group showed a tendency for lower odds to remain diseased compared to the control group (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.22-1.06). The odds for a site to remain diseased after 12 months increased significantly in the presence of plaque (OR 7.94, 95%CI 4.12-15.28), but in general, decreased significantly over time (OR 0.48, 95%CI 0.28-0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: Re-instrumentation of residual pockets in SPC patients, per se, leads to a significant increase in pocket closure over time; this was impeded by poor plaque control. Repeated local application of HyA results in fewer sites requiring re-instrumentation and might slightly improve the rate of pocket closure. (clinicaltrials.gov registration nr. NCT04792541).
CONCLUSIONS: HyA gel is easy to apply, well accepted by patients, and may have some positive effect in terms of fewer sites requiring re-instrumentation at 3 months and higher pocket closure rate at 12 months.

OBJECTIVE: To longitudinally assess the prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in a cohort of patients with and without history of periodontitis over a 20-year period.
METHODS: Eighty-four patients who attended a specialist private periodontal practice were evaluated prospectively 10 and 20 years after prosthesis delivery. Following successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients (172 implants) were enrolled on an individualised supportive periodontal care programme. Clinical and radiographic parameters were collected to assess the prevalence of peri-implant health and diseases. Prevalence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis was calculated based on the case definition set out in 2018. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess potential risk or protective factors.
RESULTS: The analysis was performed on 22 periodontally healthy and 62 periodontally compromised patients rehabilitated with 39 and 130 implants, respectively. The 10-year prevalence of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was 21.4%, 67.9% and 10.6%, respectively, whereas the 20-year prevalence was 29.8%, 47.6% and 33.3%, respectively. Non-compliant periodontally compromised patients showed a statistically significantly increased risk at 20 years of both peri-implant mucositis (odds ratio 11.1; 95% confidence interval 1.8-68.6) and peri-implantitis (bone loss and probing depth) (odds ratio 14.3; 95% confidence interval 1.8-32.9). High full-mouth plaque and bleeding scores were associated with higher odds of both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implant diseases were prevalent in patients rehabilitated with dental implants and followed up for a period of 20 years. History of periodontal disease and a lack of compliance with a tailored supportive periodontal care programme were identified as risk factors for peri-implant diseases.