Refine
Document Type
- Article (11)
Language
- English (11)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (11)
Keywords
- Dental implant (3)
- Biopsy (2)
- Macrophage polarization (2)
- Peri-implantitis (2)
- Treatment (2)
- dental implant (2)
- peri-implant diseases (2)
- peri-implantitis (2)
- prevalence (2)
- systematic review (2)
Institute
- Medizin (11)
Peri-implantitis: summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
(2021)
Objective: To evaluate the influence of implant and prosthetic components on peri-implant tissue health. A further aim was to evaluate peri-implant soft-tissue changes following surgical peri-implantitis treatment. Materials and methods: Group discussions based on two systematic reviews (SR) and one critical review (CR) addressed (i) the influence of implant material and surface characteristics on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis, (ii) implant and restorative design elements and the associated risk for peri-implant diseases, and (iii) peri-implant soft-tissue level changes and patient-reported outcomes following peri-implantitis treatment. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were discussed within the group and approved during plenary sessions. Results: Data from preclinical in vivo studies demonstrated significantly greater radiographic bone loss and increased area of inflammatory infiltrate at modified compared to non-modified surface implants. Limited clinical data did not show differences between modified and non-modified implant surfaces in incidence or progression of peri-implantitis (SR). There is some evidence that restricted accessibility for oral hygiene and an emergence angle of >30 combined with a convex emergence profile of the abutment/prosthesis are associated with an increased risk for peri-implantitis (CR). Reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis resulted in significantly less soft-tissue recession, when compared with access flap. Implantoplasty or the adjunctive use of a barrier membrane had no influence on the extent of peri-implant mucosal recession following peri-implantitis treatment (SR).