Introduction: Peri-implantitis is a serious complication in dental implantology that, if left untreated, may lead to implant loss and systemic diseases. Effective regeneration of bone defects resulting from peri-implantitis is crucial to maintaining the functionality of dental implants. Purpose of the Study: The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of fine-particle dentin and Bio-Oss in the reconstruction of bone defects caused by peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: The study included a comprehensive radiological assessment of changes in bone density over time. Bone density was assessed using Hounsfield Units (HUs) as a measure of bone attenuation, with radiological assessments performed at 8- and 12-week intervals during the healing process. The study included participants ranging in age from 30 to 65 years. Fifty-seven patients were divided into three groups: 22 patients received small-particle dentin, 15 received Bio-Oss, and 20 controls without bone substitute material. Results: The fine-dentin group showed a 20% increase in bone density after 8 weeks (p < 0.05), while the Bio-Oss group showed a 15% increase after 12 weeks (p < 0.05). The control group showed minimal changes in bone density (5% after 12 weeks), which was not statistically significant. Clinical evaluations showed 95% successful integration in the fine dentin group, 85% in the Bio-Oss group, and 70% in the control group. The fine-dentin group showed a 20% increase in bone density after 8 weeks (p < 0.05), while the Bio-Oss group showed a 15% increase after 12 weeks (p < 0.05). The control group showed minimal changes in bone density (5% after 12 weeks), which was not statistically significant. Clinical evaluations showed 95% successful integration in the fine-dentin group, 85% in the Bio-Oss group, and 70% in the control group. Conclusions: Both fine-particle dentin and Bio-Oss significantly improved bone density compared to the control group. Fine-particle dentin is suitable for immediate bone regeneration due to its rapid initial regeneration, while Bio-Oss provides long-term support, ideal for maintaining implant stability over a longer period of time. The results highlight the importance of selecting appropriate bone replacement materials depending on the clinical scenario to improve patient outcomes after dental implant placement.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between risk profile assessments of dental implants that have been in function for at least two-year and peri-implant marginal bone loss during the follow-up period using the Implant Disease Risk Assessment Diagram. Material and Methods: A total of 70 patients and 170 implants who had been functionally loaded for at least two years and who attended follow-up sessions were included in the study. Full-mouth plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level (CAL), and peri-implant modified plaque index, modified bleeding index, PD, keratinized mucosal width (KMW), CAL and GR were recorded. According to the IDRA risk diagram, participants and dental implants were divided into low, moderate, and high-risk groups. Marginal bone level (MBL) was measured on periapical radiographs obtained at functional loading (T0) and at the last follow-up session (T1), and mesial and distal marginal bone level changes (ΔMBL) were calculated as T1-T0. Results: A statistically significant correlation was found between the periodontitis history and periodontitis susceptibility and IDRA classification at the patient-level. Full-mouth GI, PD, and BOP were found to be statistically higher in the high-risk IDRA group. No statistically significant result was found between the mesial and distal ΔMBL between the IDRA risk groups.Conclusions: In this study, IDRA risk level increased especially by periodontitis susceptibility and periodontitis history, but no significant difference was found between risk groups in terms of ΔMBL.

The microbial profile of patients with periimplantis to inqure any unique composition of microorganisms in them is of interest to dentists. Hence, we evaluated the microbial profile of patients with peri-implantitis, patients with periodontitis and normal healthy subjects. 180 subjects were included in this study. Plaque samples were collected from 60periodontically healthy (PH) participants, 60 periodontitis (PT) subjects, and 60 periimplantitis (PI) subjects. Final concentrations were obtained for seven most common periodontal pathogens namely Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Treponema denticola, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Staphylococcus aureus and Haemophilus parainfluenzae. The abundance of microorganisms was represented in the form of Log10CFU (x103). The abundance of periopathogens evaluated in this research was different in periimplantitis patients, periodontitis patients and normal healthy subjects with slight greater abundance of peripathogens in patient with periimplantitis.

This systematic review investigates the probable effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on the severity of periodontal disease and peri-implantitis and implant survival. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Library up to April 2024. Two review authors independently screened the title and abstracts and then the full texts of retrieved studies. Observational and clinical trial studies that assessed the association between PPIs use and periodontal disease severity and peri-implantitis or implant survival were included. Data extraction from the included studies was done by two reviews independently. Of 940 studies initially retrieved from online searching, 7 research met the inclusion criteria. Three studies examined periodontitis, while four focused on peri-implantitis and implant longevity. On the contrary, evidence regarding the impact of PPIs use on peri-implantits and implant survival is conflicting. Therefore, more well-designed RCTs are warranted to come to a definite conclusion. Since proton pump inhibitors alter the gut microbiome, and affect bone, plus the pathogenesis and etiology of periodontal disease are affected by bacteria within the periodontal pocket, it is hypothesized that they may affect periodontal pathogenesis.

The number of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients requiring renal replacement therapy is increasing, often exhibiting oral manifestations including periodontal disease, gingival hyperplasia, altered saliva composition, and uremic stomatitis. Uremic stomatitis, xerostomia, and candidiasis are very frequent, particularly among patients undergoing dialysis or kidney transplant recipients. CKD patients also experience profound alterations in bone metabolism inherent in the homeostasis of calcium, phosphorus, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone, and fibroblast growth factor (FGF). These alterations lead to demineralization of the jaw bones, reduced bone trabeculae, reduced cortical bone thickness, fibrocystic bone lesions, bone fractures, and delayed wound healing post-tooth extraction. Consequently, oral health management of elderly hemodialysis patients poses serious clinical problems. This review focused on the oral health and rehabilitation of patients with CKD or on dialysis.

OBJECTIVE: Nanotechnology is constantly advancing in dental science, progressing several features aimed at improving dental implants. An alternative for surface treatment of dental implants is electrochemical anodization, which may generate a nanotubular surface (TiO2 nanotubes) with antibacterial potential and osteoinductive features. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to elucidate the possible antibacterial properties of the surface in question compared to the untreated titanium surface.
METHODS: For that purpose, was performed a systematic search on the bases PubMed, Lilacs, Embase, Web Of Science, Cinahl, and Cochrane Central, as well as, manual searches and gray literature.
METHODS: The searches resulted in 742 articles, of which 156 followed for full-text reading. Then, 37 were included in the systematic review and 8 were included in meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies revealed significant antibacterial protection using TiO2 nanotube surfaces, while 15 studies found no statistical difference between control and nanotextured surfaces. Meta-analysis of in vitro studies demonstrated relevant bacterial reduction only for studies investigating Staphylococcus aureus in a period of 6 h. Meta-analysis of in vivo studies revealed three times lower bacterial adhesion and proliferation on TiO2 nanotube surfaces.
CONCLUSIONS: TiO2 nanotube topography as a surface for dental implants in preclinical research has demonstrated a positive relationship with antibacterial properties, nevertheless, factors such as anodization protocols, bacteria strains, and mono-culture methods should be taken into consideration, consequently, further studies are necessary to promote clinical translatability.

Polymicrobial biofilm removal and decontamination of the implant surface is the most important goal in the treatment of periimplantitis. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of four different decontamination methods for removing Acinetobacter baumannii and Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro. Seventy-five dental implants were contaminated with a bacterial suspension and randomly divided into five groups (n = 15): the negative control group, which received no treatment; the positive control group, treated with 0.2% chlorhexidine; group 1, treated with a chitosan brush (Labrida BioCleanTM, Labrida AS, Oslo, Norway); group 2, treated with a chitosan brush and 0.2% chlorhexidine; and group 3, treated with a device based on the electrolytic cleaning method (GalvoSurge, GalvoSurge Dental AG, Widnau, Switzerland). The colony-forming unit (CFU) count was used to assess the number of viable bacteria in each sample, and statistical analyses were performed. When compared to the negative control group, all the decontamination methods reduced the CFU count. The electrolytic cleaning method decontaminated the implant surface more effectively than the other three procedures, while the chitosan brush was the least effective. Further research in more realistic settings is required to assess the efficacy of the decontamination procedures described in this study.

暂无摘要。

To assess which decontamination method(s) used for the debridement of titanium surfaces (disks and dental implants) contaminated with bacterial, most efficiently eliminate bacterial biofilms.
A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2022. The search strategy followed the PICOS format and included only in vitro studies completed on either dental implant or titanium disk samples. The assessed outcome variable consisted of the most effective method(s)-chemical or mechanical- removing bacterial biofilm from titanium surfaces. A meta-analysis was conducted, and data was summarized through single- and multi-level random effects model (p < .05).
The initial search resulted in 5260 articles after the removal of duplicates. After assessment by title, abstract, and full-text review, a total of 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Different decontamination methods were assessed, including both mechanical and chemical, with the most common method across studies being chlorhexidine (CHX). Significant heterogeneity was noted across the included studies. The meta-analyses only identified a significant difference in biofilm reduction when CHX treatment was compared against PBS. The remaining comparisons did not identify significant differences between the various decontamination methods.
The present results do not demonstrate that one method of decontamination is superior in eliminating bacterial biofilm from titanium disk and implant surfaces.

Periimplant mucositis and periimplantitis are common complications of dental implant. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the 2017 World Workshop\'s new definition, clinical and radiographic presentation, pathogenesis, risk factors, and classification of periimplant diseases. Also, the authors discuss various types of instruments, materials, and techniques commonly used for treatment of nonsurgical and surgical periimplantitis. Lastly, the authors include some controversial topics surrounding this subject.