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.

BACKGROUND: The hypothesis of bacterial infection initiating marginal bone loss around dental implant in analogy with natural tooth is still in debate.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the effects of uncontrolled periodontitis on marginal bone alterations around implants compared with the periodontal health group at a mean follow-up of at least 6 years.
METHODS: Thirty consecutive uncontrolled periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and 30 periodontally healthy patients (PHP), with a total of 96 Straumann implants (PCP = 55, PHP = 41) were matched for age, gender, smoking, and implant characteristics. The inclusion criteria for PCPs were continuing tooth loss due to uncontrolled periodontal disease and no supportive periodontal maintenance after implant therapy. Peri-implant conditions were examined and the number of teeth lost during the follow-up periods was recorded in both groups. Radiographic marginal bone loss of implants and adjacent teeth was calculated having the restoration time point as baseline.
RESULTS: No implant loss occurred in both groups. The mean number of teeth lost during the follow-up periods was 0.67 ± 0.80 in the PHP group, 3.93 ± 2.36 in the PCP group with statistical significance. The average overall bone loss was significantly greater at teeth than that around implants in the PCP group (0.54 ± 0.27 versus 0.22 ± 0.25 mm, P < .001), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the PHP group (0.18 ± 0.08 versus 0.22 ± 0.18 mm, P = .317). No statistically significant differences were observed between PC and PH patients when comparing the peri-implant marginal bone loss. No significant correlations were found between teeth loss and crestal bone loss at implants sites in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study indicated that the marginal bone level around implants seemed more stable in comparison to that around the natural teeth when exposed to uncontrolled periodontal disease.

BACKGROUND: During the last three decades dental implants have become increasingly used in partially edentulous periodontally compromised patients. The type of bacteria in the peri-implant sulcus is influenced by the periodontal bacteria present on the surfaces of the remaining teeth. Peri-implant sulci of partially edentulous individuals harbour more motile rods and spirochetes than those of fully edentulous individuals. If Peri-implantitis arises, it may lead to implant failure. This complication occurs more frequently in patients with poor oral hygiene. This is a site-specific bacterial infection similar to that caused by periodontal bacteria around teeth and it should be prevented.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to radiographically evaluate hard tissue response around 6 implants, over a 2-year period, in a previously surgically treated patient affected by severe chronic periodontitis. Psychological considerations and behavioral management of the patient are described.
METHODS: A complex implant-perio-prosthodontic case of a 54-year-old man affected by meningeal melanomatosis with a history of generalized severe chronic periodontitis was recruited. A comprehensive periodontal examination around teeth was accomplished before periodontal and implant treatment. After diagnostic work-up, compromised teeth from 1.3 to 2.3 and from 3.2 to 4.2 were extracted. Tooth 1.7 was also extracted. Afterwards fixed provisional restoration rehabilitated all the natural dentition and the missing teeth. Endodonthic therapies were conducted on all the teeth due to high dentinal sensitivity and pre-prosthodontic crown reconstructions performed. Periodontal surgery with modified Widman flaps were then accomplished on all the teeth. Three months later four maxillary implants in position 1.3,1.1,2.1,2.3 and two mandibular implants in position 4.2,3.2 were inserted. During mandibular implants positioning, the mental mussels were isolated and detached to achieve proper guided bone regeneration. During implant surgery, due to systemic conditions concern, the patient underwent intravenous sedation. Five months later the implants and the teeth were rehabilitated with fixed metal-ceramic bridges. Regarding the upper prosthetic rehabilitation, the incisors marginal edges were kept vertical to the nasal spine, due to lack of previous reference points. According to the reference points previously determined, the difference in bone level between radiographs taken at implants insertion and at the maintenance appointments was calculated.
RESULTS: The health of the periodontally treated teeth resulted greatly enhanced. The mean alveolar bore loss was 0,30 mm after a 2-year observation period.
CONCLUSIONS: The control of the periodontal disease before implant insertion in patients with severe chronic periodontitis is of paramount importance, as well as a regular maintenance program is essential for the health of the periodontal and peri-implant tissues. The management of patients with complex needs requires a multidisciplinary team designed to meet all the patient\'s needs on various levels.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) implants in patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP).
METHODS: One hundred and forty-nine partially edentulous patients were consecutively enrolled in private specialist practice and divided into three groups according to their periodontal condition: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and severely PCP. Implants were placed to support fixed prostheses, after successful completion of initial periodontal therapy. At the end of active periodontal treatment (APT), patients were asked to follow an individualized supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) program. Diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant biological complications were performed according to cumulative interceptive supportive therapy (CIST). At 10 years, clinical and radiographic measures were recorded by two calibrated operators, blind to the initial patient classification, on 123 patients, as 26 were lost to follow up. The number of sites treated according to therapy modalities C and D (antibiotics and/or surgery) during the 10 years was registered.
RESULTS: Six implants were removed for biological complications. The implant survival rate was 100% for PHP, 96.9% for moderate PCP and 97.1% for severe PCP. Antibiotic and/or surgical therapy was performed in 18.8% of cases in PHP, in 52.2% of cases in moderate PCP and in 66.7% cases in severe PCP, with a statistically significant differences between PHP and both PCP groups. At 10 years, the percentage of implants, with at least one site that presented a PD ≥ 6 mm, was, respectively, 0% for PHP, 9.4% for moderate PCP and 10.8% for severe PCP, with a statistically significant difference between PHP and both PCP groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that SLA implants, placed under a strict periodontal control, offer predictable long-term results. Nevertheless, patients with a history of periodontitis, who did not fully adhere to the SPT, presented a statistically significant higher number of sites that required additional surgical and/or antibiotic treatment. Therefore, patients should be informed, from the beginning, of the value of the SPT in enhancing long-term outcomes of implant therapy, particularly those affected by periodontitis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between patients with a history of periodontitis and development of cement-related peri-implant disease.
METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with 129 implants for this retrospective analysis were selected from completed implant cases that were scheduled for regular maintenance or had experienced mechanical or biological complications between years 2006 and 2011 in private practice. Implants with extracoronal residual cement and implants without cement remnants were analyzed. The selected cases were further divided into two groups--implants in patients with history of periodontitis (1) and implants in periodontitis-free individuals (2). The selection of these groups was made on the basis of treatment history and orthopantomograph. As a control group, a set of 238 screw-retained implant restorations, delivered to 66 patients during the same period of time was examined. The incidence of peri-implant disease among implants in all groups was calculated.
RESULTS: Peri-implant disease was evident in 62 of 73 implants with cement remnants (85%). All implants in group 1 developed peri-implantitis--4 early and 35 delayed disease cases. In the periodontally healthy group, 20 of 31 implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis, 3 implants had early peri-implantitis, and 11 implants with cement remnants did not develop biological complications. In the group of implants without cement remnants, peri-implant disease was diagnosed in 17 of 56 cases (30%). In contrast, only two occurrences of peri-implant disease were registered in the control group of screw-retained restorations (1.08%).
CONCLUSIONS: Implants with cement remnants in patients with history of periodontitis may be more likely to develop peri-implantitis, compared with patients without history of periodontal infection.