Author:
Sahrmann Philipp,Tarsch Jens,Schmidlin Patrick R.
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
Dental implants show impressive survival and like rates, but peri-implantitis is a frequent inflammatory disease which affects the implant-surrounding tissues. While biofilms on the implant surface is considered its etiologic reason, several risk factors determine the pace of progression of peri-implant bone loss. Some risk factors are generally accepted while others are still unconfirmed and a matter of ongoing discussion. Among the latter, tissue macrophage sensitization on TiO2 has gained scientific interest in recent years. The aim of the present case-control study was to test for potential associations between clinically manifest peri-implantitis and MS related parameters.
Materials and methods
In patients with implants affected by peri-implantitis in the test group and healthy implants in the control group clinical parameters (peri-implant pocket depths (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured. Samples of aMMP-8 were taken from the entrance of the peri-implant sulcus and bacterial samples were collected from the sulcus. Blood samples were obtained from the basilic vein to assess MA-related laboratory parameters. Potential correlations between clinical and laboratory parameters were tested by multiple regression (p < 0.05).
Results
No statistically significant correlations were found between clinical or bacteriological findings and laboratory parameters were found.
Conclusions
Based on the findings of this study elevated MA-related laboratory parameters do not appear to be linked to peri-implantitis.
Clinical relevance
Sensitization on TiO2 is not associated with clinical symptoms of peri-implantitis.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference42 articles.
1. Adler L, Buhlin K, Jansson L (2020) Survival and complications: a 9- to 15-year retrospective follow-up of dental implant therapy. J Oral Rehabil 47(1):67–77
2. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S (2015) Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(3):377–388
3. Schwartz-Arad D, Kidron N, Dolev E (2005) A long-term study of implants supporting overdentures as a model for implant success. J Periodontol 76(9):1431–1435
4. Baj A, Lo Muzio L, Lauritano D, Candotto V, Mancini GE, Gianni AB (2016) Success of immediate versus standard loaded implants: a short literature review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 30(2 Suppl 1):183–188
5. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS (2012) Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 23(Suppl 6):2–21