This review discusses the role of diagnostic measures in the lifelong management of periodontal disease and peri-implant complications. After active treatment, these conditions require regular monitoring of the supporting structures of teeth and dental implants to assess bone and soft tissue health over time. Several clinical measures have been developed for the routine assessment of periodontal and peri-implant tissues, including periodontal and peri-implant probing, bleeding on probing, intraoral radiography, biomarker analysis, and microbiological testing. This review highlights the evolution of diagnostic practices, integrating traditional methods with emerging technologies such as resonance frequency analysis and ultrasound imaging to provide a holistic view of peri-implant health assessment. In addition to objective measurements, patient risk factors are considered. The goals of periodontal and peri-implant maintenance are to control disease activity and stabilize tissues through supportive care, which includes diagnostic measures at follow-up visits. This enables clinicians to monitor treatment outcomes, assess health status, and detect recurrence or progression early through routine evaluation, allowing additional interventions, including adjustment of supportive therapy intervals, to further improve and maintain periodontal and peri-implant stability over time.

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.

To identify (i) the prevalence of meeting the endpoints of \'stable periodontitis\' (probing pocket depth [PPD] ≤ 4 mm, bleeding on probing [BoP] < 10%, no BoP at 4 mm sites), \'endpoints of therapy\' (no PPD > 4 mm with BoP, no PPD ≥ 6 mm), \'controlled periodontitis\' (≤4 sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm), \'PPD < 5 mm\' and \'PPD < 6 mm\' at the start of supportive periodontal care [SPC]) and (ii) the incidence of tooth loss in relation to not meeting these endpoints within a minimum of 5 years of SPC.
Systematic electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify studies where subjects, upon completion of active periodontal therapy, entered into SPC. Duplicate screening was performed to find relevant articles. Corresponding authors were contacted to confirm inclusion and retrieve required clinical data for further analyses to assess the prevalence of reaching endpoints and incidence of subsequent tooth loss, if available, within at least 5 years of SPC. Meta-analyses were carried out to evaluate risk ratios for tooth loss in relation to not reaching the various endpoints.
Fifteen studies including 12,884 patients and 323,111 teeth were retrieved. Achievement of endpoints at baseline SPC was rare (1.35%, 11.00% and 34.62%, respectively, for \'stable periodontitis\', \'endpoints of therapy\' and \'controlled periodontitis\'). Less than a third of the 1190 subjects with 5 years of SPC data lost teeth-a total of 3.14% of all teeth were lost. Statistically significant associations with tooth loss, at the subject-level, were found for not achieving \'controlled periodontitis\' (relative risk [RR] = 2.57), PPD < 5 mm (RR = 1.59) and PPD < 6 mm (RR = 1.98).
An overwhelming majority of subjects and teeth do not achieve the proposed endpoints for periodontal stability, yet most periodontal patients preserve most of their teeth during an average of 10-13 years in SPC.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the oral health-related quality of life (oHRQoL) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after 10 years of supportive periodontal care (SPC).
METHODS: Patients were re-examined 120±12 months after active periodontal therapy. Dental and periodontal status and oHRQoL by completing Oral Health Impact Profile-G49 (OHIP-G49) and PROMs by marking a visual analogue scale (VAS) for self-perceived esthetics (VASe), chewing function (VASc), and hygiene ability (VASh) were assessed. Patient- and tooth-related factors (age, insurance status, number of SPC, compliance, change of therapist, smoking, tooth loss, need for surgery or antibiotic intake, bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal inflamed surface area) influencing oHRQoL and PROMs were evaluated.
RESULTS: One hundred eight periodontally compromised patients (59 female, mean age 65.4±10.7 years) lost 135 teeth during 10 years of SPC. At re-examination, 1.8% of all sites showed PPD ≥6mm. The mean OHIP-G49 sum score was 17.6±18.5, and VAS resulted in 76.0±22.5 (VASe), 86.3±16.3 (VASc), and 79.8±15.8 (VASh). Linear regression analyses identified a positive correlation with oHRQoL and/or PROMs for private insurance status (OHIP-G49, p=0.015, R2=0.204; VASc, p=0.005, R2=0.084; VASh, p=0.012, R2=0.222) and compliance to SPC (VASe, p=0.032; R2=0.204), as well as a negative correlation for active smoking (VASc, p=0.012, R2=0.084), increased BOP (VASh, p=0.029, R2=0.222) at the start of SPC, and number of lost molars (VASh, p=0.008, R2=0.222).
CONCLUSIONS: It is realistic to obtain satisfactory oHRQoL and PROM values in most of the patients after 10 years of SPC. The identified factors may help to predict patient satisfaction in the long-term course of therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic therapy of periodontally compromised patients provides values for oHRQoL and PROMs in a favorable range 10 years after therapy. This should encourage dentists to implement SPC in their daily routine.
BACKGROUND: NCT03048045.

While it is well-established that patients that develop signs of relapsing periodontitis in supportive periodontal care (SPC) will need to repeat subgingival instrumentation of the residual pockets, less certainty is available in terms of which protocol should be followed and whether the use of adjunctive therapies or physical agents might provide additional benefits to repeated instrumentation alone. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to assess whether repeating subgingival instrumentation in combination with adjunctive therapies (other than antimicrobials) might provide a significant benefit in terms of pocket closure, probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction or clinical attachment level (CAL) gain in patients during SPC with residual/relapsing pockets. Four databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) with a minimum follow-up of 3 months that investigated the use of adjunctive therapies (other than antimicrobials) in case of residual/relapsing pockets in patients in SPC since at least 3 months. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed in the studies meeting the inclusion criteria and meta-analysis was performed when ≥3 studies assessing the same adjunctive therapy were identified. 12 studies (2 CCTs and 10 RCTs) were included for qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis was performed only for 3 studies on the adjunctive use of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and it indicated a nonsignificant benefit compared to the placebo in terms of PPD reduction and CAL gain at 3 months (weighted mean difference 0.07 and -0.03, respectively) and at 6 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference -0.09 and -0.18, respectively). While antiseptics did not provide significant benefits, one study on probiotics and one on the use of vitamin D and calcium supplementation showed significant improvements in periodontal parameters. There is currently insufficient/poor evidence to determine the efficacy of adjunctive strategies (other than antimicrobials) to improve the outcomes of SPC in case of residual/relapsing pockets.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the importance of achieving a successfully treated stable periodontitis patient status (PPS) during long-term supportive periodontal care (SPC).
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 100 periodontitis patients, who continued for ≥ 7.5 years after active periodontal treatment with SPC and were judged as overall adherent. The effect of various predictors on 3 patient-related outcome parameters was assessed: number of 1) diseased teeth at last SPC, 2) teeth lost due to periodontitis, and 3) teeth lost due to any reason.
RESULTS: One fifth of the patients were classified as stable after active periodontal treatment. After a mean follow-up of 10.77 years, 24 patients lost 38 teeth due to periodontitis. An unstable PPS and a higher number of diseased teeth per patient at first SPC, and inadequate oral hygiene levels over time significantly increased the risk for a higher number of diseased teeth per patient at last SPC and for more lost teeth due to periodontitis. However, high adherence to SPC appeared to mitigate the negative effect of an unstable PPS, especially regarding tooth loss due to periodontitis. Further, tooth loss due to any reason was about 3-times higher than tooth loss due to periodontitis and was affected by a larger number of predictors.
CONCLUSIONS: Successfully treated patients with a stable PPS maintained a low number of diseased teeth and barely lost teeth during long-term SPC compared to patients not achieving a stable PPS after active periodontal therapy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the recurrence of disease of people in long-term supportive periodontal care (SPC), previously treated for periodontitis, and determine the effect of different methods of managing recurrence. The review focused on stage IV periodontitis.
METHODS: An electronic search was conducted (until May 2020) for prospective clinical trials. Tooth loss was the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were retrieved to address recurrence of disease in long-term SPC. Eight studies were included in the meta-analyses for tooth loss, and three studies for disease progression/recurrence (clinical attachment level [CAL] loss ≥2 mm). For patients in SPC of 5-20 years, prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5%-14%), while experiencing more than one site of CAL loss ≥2 mm was 24.8% (95% CI 11%-38%). Six studies informed on the effect of different methods of managing recurrence, with no clear evidence of superiority between methods. No data was found specifically for stage IV periodontitis.
CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of patients with stage III/IV periodontitis will experience tooth loss in long-term SPC (tendency for greater prevalence with time). Regular SPC appears to be important for reduction of tooth loss. No superior method to manage disease recurrence was found.