Search

OBJECTIVES To systematically assess the literature and report on (1) the frequency of occurrence of buccal soft tissue dehiscence (BSTD) at implants, (2) factors associated with the occurrence of BSTD and (3) treatment outcomes of reconstructive therapy for the coverage of BSTD. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two systematic reviews addressing focused questions related to implant BSTD occurrence, associated factors and the treatment outcomes of BSTD coverage served as the basis for group discussions and the consensus statements. The main findings of the systematic reviews, consensus statements and implications for clinical practice and for future research were formulated within group 3 and were further discussed and reached final approval within the plenary session. RESULTS Buccally positioned implants were the factor most strongly associated with the risk of occurrence of BSTD, followed by thin tissue phenotype. At immediate implants, it was identified that the use of a connective tissue graft (CTG) may act as a protective factor for BSTD. Coverage of BSTD may be achieved with a combination of a coronally advanced flap (CAF) and a connective tissue graft, with or without prosthesis modification/removal, although feasibility of the procedure depends upon multiple local and patient-related factors. Soft tissue substitutes showed limited BSTD coverage. CONCLUSION Correct three-dimensional (3D) positioning of the implant is of utmost relevance to prevent the occurrence of BSTD. If present, BSTD may be covered by CAF +CTG, however the evidence comes from a low number of observational studies. Therefore, future research is needed for the development of further evidence-based clinical recommendations.

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). Conclusions Prosthesis overcontouring and impaired access to oral hygiene procedures increases risk for peri-implantitis. When indicated, reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment may facilitate the maintenance of post-operative peri-implant soft-tissue levels.

OBJECTIVE This treatment concept paper introduces a risk assessment tool, the Implant Disease Risk Assessment, (IDRA) which estimates the risk for a patient to develop peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS The functional risk assessment diagram was constructed incorporating eight parameters, each with documented evidence for an association with peri-implantitis. RESULTS The eight vectors of the diagram include (1) assessment of a history of periodontitis (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP) (3) number of teeth/implants with probing depths (PD) ≥5 mm (4) the ratio of periodontal bone loss (evaluated from a radiograph) divided by the patient's age (5) periodontitis susceptibility as described by the staging and grading categories from the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases (Journal of Periodontology, 89 Suppl 1, S159-S172, 2018) (6) the frequency/compliance with supportive periodontal therapy (7) the distance in mm from the restorative margin of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest and (8) prosthesis-related factors including cleanability and fit of the implant-supported prosthesis. CONCLUSION The combination of these factors in a risk assessment tool, IDRA, may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for development of peri-implantitis.

Objectives To report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri-implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri-implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years. Material and methods A systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant- and patient-level was pooled with random-effects meta-analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals. Results The search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21-32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26-45). Study designs (case definitions of peri-implantitis, peri-implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%-100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%-100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%-100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%-98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively. Conclusion Therapy of peri-implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient- and implant-level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri-implant bone levels in the majority of patients.

OBJECTIVES This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis. METHODS A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. FINDINGS Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. CONCLUSIONS Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Objectives Working Group 2 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation had a focus on the influence of vertical implant placement on papilla height at single implants adjacent to teeth and on the inter-implant mucosa fill at two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. Materials and methods Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the consensus meeting. Due to the heterogeneity among the studies with regard to study design, study population, method of assessment, meta-analyses were not possible. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert group. Results The systematic review about single-tooth implants included a total of 12 studies demonstrating that the vertical distance from the crestal bone level to the base of the interproximal contact point varied considerably from 2 mm up to 11 mm, and a partial or complete papilla fill was reached in 56.5% to 100% of the cases. For the systematic review regarding two adjacent implants, only four studies reported on horizontal inter-implant distances which ranged between 2.0 and 4.0 mm. More than half of the papilla presence was indicated in 21% to 88.5% of the cases. Conclusions It was concluded that for single-tooth implants, the papilla height between an implant and a tooth is predominantly dependent on the clinical attachment level of the tooth. In cases with two adjacent implants, it was concluded that it is not possible to define the optimal horizontal distance between two adjacent implants restored with fixed dental prosthess.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures.RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long-term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla.CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for postoperative complications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 and consensus plenary discussions and statements on a narrative review providing the background and possible facilities and importance of a dental implant register, to allow for a systematic follow-up of the clinical outcome of dental implant treatment in various clinical settings. It should be observed that the format of the review and the subsequent consensus report consciously departs from conventional consensus publications and reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The publication was a narrative review on the presence and significance of quality registers regarding select medical conditions and procedures. The group discussed and evaluated the publication and made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the statements and recommendations described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Possible registrations to be included in an implant register were discussed and agreed as a preliminary basis for further development, meaning that additional parameters be included or some be deleted. CONCLUSIONS: It was agreed to bring the idea of an implant quality register, including the presented results of discussions and proposals by the group- and plenary sessions, to the EAO Board for further discussion and decision.

This review aims to highlight concepts relating to nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy, which have been learned and unlearned over the past few decades. A number of treatment procedures, such as gingival curettage and aggressive removal of contaminated root cementum, have been unlearned. Advances in technology have resulted in the introduction of a range of new methods for use in nonsurgical periodontal therapy, including machine-driven instruments, lasers, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and local antimicrobial-delivery devices. However, these methods have not been shown to offer significant benefits over and above nonsurgical debridement using hand instruments. The method of debridement is therefore largely dependent on the preferences of the operator and the patient. Recent evidence indicates that specific systemic antimicrobials may be indicated for use as adjuncts to nonsurgical debridement in patients with advanced disease. Full-mouth disinfection protocols have been proven to be a relevant treatment option. We have learned that while nonsurgical and surgical methods result in similar long-term treatment outcomes, surgical therapy results in greater probing-depth reduction and clinical attachment gain in initially deep pockets. The surgical technique chosen seems to have limited influence upon changes in clinical attachment gain. What has not changed is the importance of thorough mechanical debridement and optimal plaque control for successful nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy.

Objectives To compare crestal bone modeling at three bone level design implants; Astra Tech Osseospeed™ Implant (AOI), Straumann® Bone Level Implant (SBLI) and NobelReplace™ Tapered Groovy Implant (NBTI). Materials and methods In 12 minipigs one implant of each design was placed on each side of the mandible with submerged healing. The implant platform was placed at the level of the crest (Group 0), and 1 mm above the crest (Group + 1 mm). In addition, one Straumann® Tissue Level Implant STLI was placed as a control on each side of the mandible. At 4 weeks, six animals were sacrificed. In the remaining six animals healing abutments were connected until 12 weeks. Clinical, radiographic, and histologic analyses were made. ANOVA and Mann–Whitney U-tests were used to evaluate differences in bone levels between implant designs. Results At 4 weeks there was no statistically significant difference in bone changes between implant designs. At 12 weeks implants in Group + 1 mm had minimal bone changes with no differences between implant designs. In Group 0, the AOI and SBLI preserved more crestal bone than NBTI (P

To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

Oral Diseases (2011) 17, 232–237 Aim: Genetic factors have recently been associated with presence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans subgingivally in populations living in industrialized countries. The aim of this study was to analyse associations between Interleukin-6 (IL6) single nucleotide polymorphisms and presence and levels of A. actinomycetemcomitans and other subgingival microbes in a rural Indian population. Subjects and Methods: A total of 251 individuals from a rural village in India with a periodontal phenotype ranging from healthy to severe periodontitis were included. Checkerboard DNA-DNA analysis was performed to detect 40 periodontal taxa in subgingival plaque samples. Genomic DNA was extracted to genotype five polymorphisms in the IL6 promoter region. Results: The IL6 −174 GG genotype was associated with high (above median) counts of A. actinomycetemcomitans (both in all subjects and in periodontally healthy only) and with presence and counts of Capnocytophaga sputigena. Differences in detection of several other bacteria were noted between periodontitis and healthy subjects. Conclusions: These findings support the influence of genetic factors on the subgingival microbiota.

Also published as a book chapter: Proceedings of the Australian Consensus Workshop on Implant Dentistry University Education, held on the Gold Coast, Australia 4-6 February 2010: pp.329-332

This paper aims to: (1) Describe the educational requirements of general practitioners who want to safely and effectively introduce implant dentistry procedures to their practice. (2) Define the necessary competencies and level of complexity that would need to be attained in a postgraduate implant dentistry programme for general dental practitioners. (3) Discuss the programme structures which universities can utilize in order to provide quality education in implant dentistry for general practitioners. (4) Provide guidelines for the resources, content, course format and instructional methods which could be well suited to the educational requirements of such programmes. The authors intend to produce a headline reference guide to outline the necessary educational structures for postgraduate pathways aimed at facilitating the continuous professional development of general practitioners within implant dentistry. This paper does not address issues concerning specialist training or higher research degrees.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of neodymium: yttrium–aluminum–garnet laser therapy as an adjunct to scaling and root planing during the hygienic phase. Methods: In eight patients, sites with a mean probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥5 mm were treated by either scaling and root planing (n = 28) (control) or by scaling and root planing and adjunctive laser therapy (n = 28) (power: 5 W). Re-evaluation was at 4–6 weeks. Thereafter, remaining pockets (mean PPD ≥5 mm) were eliminated by either laser surgery (power: 7 W) or gingivectomy (control). Results: At baseline, the mean PPD of sites originally presenting with a mean PPD ≥4 mm were 4.69 and 4.73 mm in the test and control sites, respectively. Six months following surgery, there was a similar average mean PPD reduction in the test (1.18 mm, P

– Background/Aim: While Australians are one of the healthiest populations in the world, inequalities in access to health care and health outcomes exist for Indigenous Australians and Australians living in rural or urban areas of the country. Hence, the purpose of this study was to develop an innovative methodological approach for predicting the incidence rates of jaw fractures and estimating the demand for oral health services within Australia. Materials and methods: Population data were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and was divided across Australia by statistical local area and related to a validated remoteness index. Every episode of discharge from all hospitals in Western Australia for the financial years 1999/2000 to 2004/2005 indicating a jaw fracture as the principle oral condition, as classified by the International Classification of Disease (ICD-10AM), was the inclusion criterion for the study. Hospitalization data were obtained from the Western Australian Hospital Morbidity Data System. Results: The model estimated almost 10 times higher jaw fracture rates for Indigenous populations than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Moreover, incidence of jaw fractures was higher among Indigenous people living in rural and remote areas compared with their urban and semi-urban counterparts. In contrast, in the non-Indigenous population, higher rates of jaw fractures were estimated for urban and semi-urban inhabitants compared with their rural and remote counterparts. Conclusions: This geographic modelling technique could be improved by methodological refinements and further research. It will be useful in developing strategies for health management and reducing the burden of jaw fractures and the cost of treatment within Australia. This model will also have direct implications for strategic planning for prevention and management policies in Australia aimed at reducing the inequalities gap both in terms of geography as well as Aboriginality.

Periodontitis is a biofilm infection with a mixed microbial aetiology. Periodontitis is generally treated by non-surgical mechanical debridement and regular periodontal maintenance care. Periodontal surgery may be indicated for some patients to improve access to the root surface for mechanical debridement. A range of systemic antibiotics for treatment of periodontitis has been documented, with some studies showing superior clinical outcomes following adjunctive antibiotics while others do not. This has resulted in controversy as to the role of systemic antibiotics in the treatment of periodontal diseases. Recent systematic reviews have provided an evidence-based assessment of the possible benefits of adjunctive antibiotics in periodontal therapy. This review aims to provide an update on clinical issues of when and how to prescribe systemic antibiotics in periodontal therapy.

Peri-implant diseases are inflammatory lesions which may affect the peri-implant mucosa only (peri-implant mucositis) or also result in loss of supporting bone (peri-implantitis). Peri-implantitis may lead to loss of the implant. Diagnosis of peri-implant disease requires the use of conventional probing to identify the presence of bleeding on probing, and suppuration, both signs of clinical inflammation. Radiographs are required to detect loss of supporting bone. Baseline probing measurements and radiographs should be obtained once the restoration of the implant is completed to allow longitudinal monitoring of peri-implant conditions. Two cross-sectional reports from Sweden indicate that the prevalence of peri-implant disease is high. Smokers and patients who have a history of periodontitis are more at risk for peri-implant disease. The main goal of treatment of peri-implant disease is to control the infection and to prevent disease progression. A number of studies have documented the successful treatment of peri-implant mucositis combining mechanical debridement and chemical plaque control. There is evidence supporting antimicrobial treatment regimens in combination with non-surgical or surgical debridement for peri-implantitis treatment. Long-term data to support these treatment protocols is limited. Whilst it is possible to treat peri-implantitis, prevention is the goal of supportive therapy.

Objectives: To assess the microbiological outcome of local administration of minocycline hydrochloride microspheres 1 mg (Arestin®) in cases with peri-implantitis and with a follow-up period of 12 months. Material and methods: After debridement, and local administration of chlorhexidine gel, peri-implantitis cases were treated with local administration of minocycline microspheres (Arestin®). The DNA–DNA checkerboard hybridization method was used to detect bacterial presence during the first 360 days of therapy. Results: At Day 10, lower bacterial loads for 6/40 individual bacteria including Actinomyces gerensceriae (P

To evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser therapy as an adjunct to scaling and root planing during the hygienic phase.In eight patients, sites with a mean probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥5 mm were treated by either scaling and root planing (n=28) (control) or by scaling and root planing and adjunctive laser therapy (n=28) (power: 5W). Re-evaluation was at 4-6 weeks. Thereafter, remaining pockets (mean PPD ≥5 mm) were eliminated by either laser surgery (power: 7 W) or gingivectomy (control).At baseline, the mean PPD of sites originally presenting with a mean PPD ≥4 mm were 4.69 and 4.73 mm in the test and control sites, respectively. Six months following surgery, there was a similar average mean PPD reduction in the test (1.18 mm, P0.01) and control sites (1.35 mm, P0.01). Also, the reduction in bleeding on probing in both groups was statistically significant (P0.01, paired t-tests). No statistically-significant differences between the test and control sites were found for any clinical or microbiological parameters at baseline, after initial, and 3 or 6 months' post-surgical therapy.During the hygienic phase, neodymium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (1064 nm) laser treatment yielded no superiority in clinical efficacy compared to conventional debridement. Laser gingivectomy resulted in similar treatment outcomes (mean PPD and bleeding on probing reduction), as did conventional gingivectomy.

Aims: While the role of bacteria in the initiation of periodontitis is primary, a range of host-related factors influence the onset, clinical presentation and rate of progression of disease. The objectives of this review are (1) to present evidence for individual predictive factors associated with a patient's susceptibility to progression of periodontitis and (2) to describe the use of prognostic models aimed at identifying high-risk groups and individuals in a clinical setting. Methods: Relevant publications in the English language were identified after Medline and PubMed database searches. Because of a paucity of longitudinal studies investigating factors including clinical, demographic, environmental, behavioural, psychosocial, genetic, systemic and microbiologic parameters to identify individuals at risk for disease progression, some association studies were also included in this review. Findings and Conclusions: Cigarette smoking is a strong predictor of progressive periodontitis, the effect of which is dose related. High levels of specific bacteria have been predictive of progressive periodontitis in some studies but not all. Diabetics with poor glycaemic control have an increased risk for progression of periodontitis. The evidence for the effect of a number of putative factors including interleukin-1 genotype, osteoporosis and psychosocial factors is inconclusive and requires further investigation in prospective longitudinal studies. Specific and sensitive diagnostic tests for the identification of individuals susceptible to disease progression are not yet a reality. While factors assessed independently may not be valuable in predicting risk of future attachment loss, the combination of factors in a multifactorial model may be useful in identifying individuals at risk for disease progression. A number of multifactorial models for risk assessment, at a subject level have been developed but require validation in prospective longitudinal studies.

Aim: The aim of this 10-year study was to compare the failure, success and complication rates between patients having lost their teeth due to periodontitis or other reasons. Material and methods: Fifty-three patients who received 112 hollow screw implants (HS) of the ITI s Dental Implant System were divided into two groups: group A – eight patients with 21 implants having lost their teeth due to chronic periodontitis; group B – forty five patients with 91 implants without a history of periodontitis. One and 10 years after surgical placement, clinical and radiographic parameters were assessed. The incidences of periimplantitis were noticed over the 10 years of regular supportive periodontal therapy. Results: Success criteria at 10 years were set at: pocket probing depth (PPD)r5 mm, bleeding on probing (BoP� , bone loss < 0.2 mm annually. The survival rate for the group with a past history of chronic periodontitis (group A) was 90.5%, while for the group with no past history of periodontitis (group B) it was 96.5%. Group A had a significantly higher incidence of peri-implantitis than group B (28.6% vs. 5.8%). With the success criteria set, 52.4% in group A and 79.1% of the implants in group B were successful. With a threshold set at

Objective: To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness of surgical vs. non-surgical therapy for the treatment of chronic periodontal disease. Methods: A search was conducted for randomized controlled trials of at least 12 months duration comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontal disease. Data sources included the National Library of Medicine computerised bibliographic database MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) Specialist Trials Register. Screening, data abstraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple reviewers (L.H., F.H., L.T.). The primary outcome measures evaluated were gain in clinical attachment level (CAL) and reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD). Results: The search provided 589 abstracts of which six randomized controlled trials were included. Meta-analysis evaluation of these studies indicated that 12 months following treatment, surgical therapy resulted in 0.6 mm more PPD reduction (WMD 0.58 mm; 95% CI 0.38, 0.79) and 0.2 mm more CAL gain (WMD 0.19 mm; 95% CI 0.04, 0.35) than non-surgical therapy in deep pockets (>6 mm). In 4–6 mm pockets scaling and root planing resulted in 0.4 mm more attachment gain (WMD −0.37 mm; 95% CI −0.49, −0.26) and 0.4 mm less probing depth reduction (WMD 0.35 mm; 95% CI 0.23, 0.47) than surgical therapy. In shallow pockets (1–3 mm) non-surgical therapy resulted in 0.5 mm less attachment loss (WMD −0.51 mm; 95% CI −0.74, −0.29) than surgical therapy. Conclusions: Both scaling and root planing alone and scaling and root planing combined with flap procedure are effective methods for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in terms of attachment level gain and reduction in gingival inflammation. In the treatment of deep pockets open flap debridement results in greater PPD reduction and clinical attachment gain.

Objectives: To determine the adjunctive effect of grafting biomaterials/biological agents with open flap debridement (OFD) in the treatment of deep intraosseous defects. Background: No systematic review of treatment outcomes in patients who received graft biomaterials or biological agents have been published. Methods: A rigorous systematic review of randomized controlled trials of at least 6-month duration was conducted comparing grafting biomaterials/biological agents (alone or in combination) + OFD (test group) to OFD alone or in combination with a placebo (control group). Results: The difference in CAL change between test and control groups varied from −1.45 mm to 1.40 mm with respect to different biomaterials/biological agents. Meta-analysis showed that CAL change significantly improved after treatment for coralline calcium carbonate (weighted mean difference 0.90 mm; 95% CI: 0.53–1.27), bioactive glass (weighted mean difference 1.04 mm; 95% CI: 0.31–1.76), hydroxyapatite (weighted mean difference 1.40 mm, 95% CI 0.64–2.16), and enamel matrix proteins (weighted mean difference 1.33 mm, 95% CI 0.78–1.88). However, heterogeneity in results between studies was highly statistically significant for most of biomaterials/biologicals and could not be fully explained. Conclusions: Overall, the use of specific biomaterials/biologicals was more effective than OFD in improving attachment levels in intraosseous defects. Difference in CAL gain varied greatly with respect to different biomaterial/biological agent. Due to a significant heterogeneity in results between studies in most treatment groups, general conclusions about the expected clinical benefit of graft biomaterials/biologicals need to be interpreted with caution. Further research should focus on understanding this variability.

Purpose: To evaluate the success of treatments aimed at the resolution of peri-implantitis in patients with osseointegrated implants. Materials and Methods: The potentially relevant literature was assessed independently by two reviewers to identify case series and comparative studies describing the treatment of peri-implantitis with a follow-up of at least 3 months. Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched. For the purposes of this review, a composite criterion for successful treatment outcome was used which comprised implant survival with mean probing depth < 5 mm and no further bone loss. Results: A total of 43 publications were included: 4 papers describing 3 nonsurgical case series, 13 papers describing 10 comparative studies of nonsurgical interventions, 15 papers describing 14 surgical case series, and 11 papers describing 6 comparative studies of surgical interventions. No trials comparing nonsurgical with surgical interventions were found. The length of follow-up varied from 3 months to 7.5 years. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, peri-implantitis case definitions, outcome variables, and reporting, no meta- analysis was performed. Eleven studies could be evaluated according to a composite success criterion. Successful treatment outcomes at 12 months were reported in 0% to 100% of patients treated in 9 studies and in 75% to 93% of implants treated in 2 studies. Commonalities in treatment approaches between studies included (1) a pretreatment phase, (2) cause-related therapy, and (3) a maintenance care phase. Conclusions: While the available evidence does not allow any specific recommendations for the therapy of peri-implantitis, successful treatment outcomes at 12 months were reported in a majority of patients in 7 studies. Although favorable short-term outcomes were reported in many studies, lack of disease resolution as well as progression or recurrence of disease and implant loss despite treatment were also reported. The reported outcomes must be viewed in the context of the varied peri-implantitis case definitions and severity of disease included as well as the heterogeneity in study design, length of follow-up, and exclusion/inclusion criteria. Int J Oral MaxIllOfac IMplants 2014;29(suppl):325–345. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g5.3

For the past decade, and expected for the next decade, Australia faces a significant health workforce shortage and an acute maldistribution of health workforce. Against this background the governments at both national and state level have been increasing the training places for all health practitioners and trying to redress the imbalance through a strong regional focus on these developments. Dentistry has been an active participant in these workforce initiatives. This study examines the increasing demand for academics and discusses the existing pathways for increase, and also examines in detail the advantages of a sustainable, shared-model approach, using dentistry as a model for other disciplines. Three non-exclusive pathways for reform are considered: importation of academics, delayed retirement and the shared resource approach. Of the various solutions outlined in this review a detailed explanation of a cost-effective shared model of senior academic leadership is highlighted as a viable, sustainable model for ameliorating the shortage. What is known about the topic? Little if any peer review literature has examined the academic workforce in oral health in Australia (or overseas). However, the lessons from other disciplines (including medicine) are that there is a growing shortage as the baby boomers move to retirement. What does this paper add? This manuscript provides some perspectives on the growing shortage of dental academics in Australia and examines one sustainable model for ameliorating this effect while Australia makes a fundamental shift in addressing academic workforce needs. What are the implications for practitioners? Academics and universities are facing growing issues with providing skilled, sustainable academic profiles in dentistry. This manuscript starts a dialogue as to options to address this issue into the future.

This review aims to highlight concepts relating to nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy, which have been learned and unlearned over the past few decades. A number of treatment procedures, such as gingival curettage and aggressive removal of contaminated root cementum, have been unlearned. Advances in technology have resulted in the introduction of a range of new methods for use in nonsurgical periodontal therapy, including machine-driven instruments, lasers, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and local antimicrobial-delivery devices. However, these methods have not been shown to offer significant benefits over and above nonsurgical debridement using hand instruments. The method of debridement is therefore largely dependent on the preferences of the operator and the patient. Recent evidence indicates that specific systemic antimicrobials may be indicated for use as adjuncts to nonsurgical debridement in patients with advanced disease. Full-mouth disinfection protocols have been proven to be a relevant treatment option. We have learned that while nonsurgical and surgical methods result in similar long-term treatment outcomes, surgical therapy results in greater probing-depth reduction and clinical attachment gain in initially deep pockets. The surgical technique chosen seems to have limited influence upon changes in clinical attachment gain. What has not changed is the importance of thorough mechanical debridement and optimal plaque control for successful nonsurgical and surgical periodontal therapy.

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate an anti-infective surgical protocol for the treatment of peri-implantitis.Thirty-six implants in 24 partially dentate patients with moderate to advanced peri-implantitis were treated using an anti-infective surgical protocol incorporating open flap debridement and implant surface decontamination, with adjunctive systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole. Treatment outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Patient-based statistical analyses using multiple regression analyses were performed.There was 100% survival of treated implants at 12 months. At 3 months, there were statistically significant (P 0.01) reductions in mean probing depths (PD), Bleeding on Probing (BoP) and suppuration. The greater the mean PD at baseline, the greater the PD reduction at 3 months. At 3 months, there was also a significant mean facial mucosal recession of 1 mm (P 0.001). All these changes were maintained at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, all treated implants had a mean PD 5 mm, while 47% of the implants had complete resolution of inflammation (BoP negative). At 12 months, 92% of implants had stable crestal bone levels or bone gain. There were no significant effects of smoking on any of the treatment outcomes.For the treatment of peri-implantitis, an anti-infective protocol incorporating surgical access, implant surface decontamination and systemic antimicrobials followed by a strict postoperative protocol was effective at 3 months with the results maintained for up to 12 months after treatment.

To compare the effectiveness of two anti-infective protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.Twenty-nine patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BOP] with no loss of supporting bone) were randomly assigned to a control or test group. Following an assessment of baseline parameters (probing depth, BOP, suppuration, presence of plaque), all patients received non-surgical mechanical debridement at the implant sites and were instructed to brush around the implant twice daily using a gel provided for a period of 4 weeks. The test group (15 patients) received a chlorhexidine gel (0.5%), and the control group (14 patients) received a placebo gel. The study was performed double blind. After 4 weeks, patients were instructed to discontinue using the gel and to continue with routine oral hygiene at the implant sites. Baseline parameters were repeated at 1 and 3 months.At 1 month, there was a statistically significant reduction in the mean number of sites with BOP and mean probing depth measurements at implants in both groups. There were also some statistically significant changes in these parameters from 1 to 3 months. However, there were no statistically significant differences between test and control groups. One month following treatment, 76% of implants had a reduction in BOP. Complete resolution of BOP at 3 months was achieved in 38% of the treated implants. The presence of a submucosal restoration margin resulted in significantly lower reductions in probing depth following treatment.Non-surgical debridement and oral hygiene were effective in reducing peri-implant mucositis, but did not always result in complete resolution of inflammation. Adjunctive chlorhexidine gel application did not enhance the results compared with mechanical cleansing alone. Implants with supramucosal restoration margins showed greater therapeutic improvement compared with those with submucosal restoration margins.

This review was undertaken to address the similarities and dissimilarities between the two disease entities of periodontitis and peri-implantitis. The overall analysis of the literature on the etiology and pathogenesis of periodontitis and peri-implantitis provided an impression that these two diseases have more similarities than differences. First, the initiation of the two diseases is dependent on the presence of a biofilm containing pathogens. While the microbiota associated with periodontitis is rich in gram-negative bacteria, a similar composition has been identified in peri-implant diseases. However, increasing evidence suggests that S. aureus may be an important pathogen in the initiation of some cases of peri-implantitis. Further research into the role of this gram-positive facultative coccus, and other putative pathogens, in the development of peri-implantitis is indicated. While the initial host response to the bacterial challenge in peri-implant mucositis appears to be identical to that encountered in gingivitis, persistent biofilm accumulation may elicit a more pronounced inflammatory response in peri-implant mucosal tissues than in the dentogingival unit. This may be a result of structural differences (such as vascularity and fibroblast-to-collagen ratios). When periodontitis and peri-implantitis were produced experimentally by applying plaque-retaining ligatures, the progression of mucositis to peri-implantitis followed a very similar sequence of events as the development of gingivitis to periodontitis. However, some of the peri-implantitis lesions appeared to have periods of rapid progression, in which the infective lesion reached the alveolar bone marrow. It is therefore reasonable to assume that peri-implantitis in humans may also display periods of accelerated destruction that are more pronounced than that observed in cases of chronic periodontitis. From a clinical point of view the identified and confirmed risk factors for periodontitis may be considered as identical to those for peri-implantitis. In addition, patients susceptible to periodontitis appear to be more susceptible to peri-implantitis than patients without a history of periodontitis. As both periodontitis and peri-implantitis are opportunistic infections, their therapy must be antiinfective in nature. The same clinical principles apply to debridement of the lesions and the maintenance of an infection-free oral cavity. However, in daily practice, such principles may occasionally be difficult to apply in peri-implantitis treatment. Owing to implant surface characteristics and limited access to the microbial habitats, surgical access may be required more frequently, and at an earlier stage, in periimplantitis treatment than in periodontal therapy. In conclusion, it is evident that periodontitis and peri-implantitis are not fundamentally different from the perspectives of etiology, pathogenesis, risk assessment, diagnosis and therapy. Nevertheless, some difference in the host response to these two infections may explain the occasional rapid progression of peri-implantitis lesions. Consequently, a diagnosed peri-implantitis should be treated without delay.

The aim of this review was to evaluate a history of treated periodontitis and smoking, both alone and combined, as risk factors for adverse dental implant outcomes.A literature search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and EMBASE from January 1, 1966, to June 30, 2008, was performed, and the outcome variables implant survival, implant success, occurrence of peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss were evaluated.Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and few studies accounted for confounding variables. For patients with a history of treated periodontitis, the majority of studies reported implant survival rates90%. Three cohort studies showed a higher risk of peri-implantitis in patients with a history of treated periodontitis compared with those without a history of periodontitis (reported odds ratios from 3.1 to 4.7). In three of four systematic reviews, smoking was found to be a significant risk for adverse implant outcome. While the majority of studies reported implant survival rates ranging from 80% to 96% in smokers, most studies found statistically significantly lower survival rates than for nonsmokers.There is an increased risk of peri-implantitis in smokers compared with nonsmokers (reported odds ratios from 3.6 to 4.6). The combination of a history of treated periodontitis and smoking increases the risk of implant failure and peri-implant bone loss.

Aims: The aims of this study were to (1) investigate the incidence of bacteraemia following flossing in subjects with chronic periodontitis or periodontal health; (2) identify the micro-organisms in detected bacteraemias; and (3) identify any patient or clinical factors associated with such bacteraemia. Material and Methods: Baseline blood samples were obtained from 30 individuals with chronic periodontitis (17 M:13 F, 29–75 years) and 30 with periodontal health (17 M:13 F, 28–71 years) following a non-invasive examination. Each subject's teeth were then flossed in a standardized manner and blood samples obtained 30 s and 10 min. after flossing cessation. Blood samples were cultured in a BACTEC™ system and positive samples subcultured for identification. Results: Forty per cent of periodontitis subjects and 41% of periodontally healthy subjects tested positive for bacteraemia following flossing. Viridans streptococci, which are commonly implicated in infective endocarditis (IE), were isolated from 19% of positive subjects and accounted for 35% of microbial isolates. Twenty per cent of subjects had a detectable bacteraemia at 10 min. post-flossing. No patient or clinical factors were significantly associated with post-flossing bacteraemia. Conclusions: Dental flossing can produce bacteraemia in periodontally healthy and periodontally diseased individuals at a rate comparable with that caused by some dental treatments for which antibiotic prophylaxis is given to prevent IE.

Background: Peri-implant diseases include peri-implant mucositis, describing an inflammatory lesion of the peri-implant mucosa, and peri-implantitis, which also includes loss of supporting bone. Methods: A literature search of the Medline database (Ovid), up to 21 January 2008 was carried out using a systematic approach, in order to review the evidence for diagnosis and the risk indicators for peri-implant diseases. Results: Experimental and clinical studies have identified various diagnostic criteria including probing parameters, radiographic assessment and peri-implant crevicular fluid and saliva analyses. Cross-sectional analyses have investigated potential risk indicators for peri-implant disease including poor oral hygiene, smoking, history of periodontitis, diabetes, genetic traits, alcohol consumption and implant surface. There is evidence that probing using a light force (0.25 N) does not damage the peri-implant tissues and that bleeding on probing (BOP) indicates presence of inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa. The probing depth, the presence of BOP, and suppuration should be assessed regularly for the diagnosis of peri-implant diseases. Radiographs are required to evaluate supporting bone levels around implants. The review identified strong evidence that poor oral hygiene, a history of periodontitis and cigarette smoking, are risk indicators for peri-implant disease. Future prospective studies are required to confirm these factors as true risk factors.

AIM: To explore the impact of bacterial load and microbial colonization patterns on the clinical outcomes of periodontal surgery at deep intrabony defects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and twenty-two patients with advanced chronic periodontitis and at least one intrabony defect of >3 mm were recruited in 10 centres. Before recruitment, the infection control phase of periodontal therapy was completed. After surgical access and debridement, the regenerative material was applied in the test subjects, and omitted in the controls. At baseline and 1 year following the interventions, clinical attachment levels (CAL), pocket probing depths (PPD), recession (REC), full-mouth plaque scores and full-mouth bleeding scores were assessed. Microbial colonization of the defect-associated pocket was assessed using a DNA-DNA checkerboard analysis. RESULTS: Total bacterial load and counts of red complex bacteria were negatively associated with CAL gains 1 year following treatment. The probability of achieving above median CAL gains (>3 mm) was significantly decreased by higher total bacterial counts, higher red complex and T. forsythensis counts immediately before surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of high bacterial load and specific periodontal pathogen complexes in deep periodontal pockets associated with intrabony defects had a significant negative impact on the 1 year outcome of surgical/regenerative treatment.

To review the literature on the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Specific emphasis was placed on the use of antimicrobial therapy, defined as local or systemic administration of antiseptic and/or antibiotic agents.A search of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and The Cochrane Health Group Specialized Register was conducted, and articles published in English until July 31, 2003, were included. The results of experimental animal studies and human research are presented.A variety of antimicrobial treatment regimens in combination with nonsurgical or surgical debridement with and without regenerative therapy were reported. Use of antimicrobials varied between studies with respect to type of drug, dosage, delivery system, duration, and commencement of antibiotic administration. Patient compliance and adverse effects related to the antimicrobials were mostly not mentioned.While the majority of the case reports and studies presented showed positive outcomes following antimicrobial treatment, there were no non-medicated controls included, so the relative effect of the antimicrobial agent(s) cannot be evaluated.Although antimicrobials are widely used for the treatment of peri-implant diseases, evidence of their benefit is limited, and randomized, controlled human trials should be initiated where ethically possible. In addition, prospective cohort studies designed to monitor consecutive cases treated using specific treatment protocols are required.

Objective: The aim of this RCT was to evaluate early wound healing following specific post-surgical care protocols. Material and Methods: Following periodontal flap surgery, 60 patients were randomly assigned to follow one of two post-surgical protocols. Subjects smoking >20 cigarettes per day were excluded. Patients following the control protocol rinsed twice daily for 1 min with 0.1% of chlorhexidine (CHX) for 4 weeks. In addition to CHX rinsing, patients assigned to the test protocol applied CHX locally using a special very soft surgical toothbrush (Chirugia®) from days 3 to 14, and a soft toothbrush (Ultrasuave®) from days 14 to 28, twice daily. Baseline measurements included gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) flow rate, probing depth, probing attachment level, presence of bleeding on probing and full-mouth plaque score. Measurements were repeated at 1, 2 and 4 weeks after surgery. Results: Both post-surgical protocols resulted in successful wound healing and optimal wound closure at 4 weeks. There were no statistical differences in the GCF flow rate between test and control protocols. There was a lower incidence of recession of 2 mm following the test protocol. Conclusion: The use of specific post-surgical cleansing protocols including the introduction of mechanical cleansing at day 3, using local application of CHX in addition to daily rinsing with CHX may be recommended.

AIM: The purpose of this study was to assess the initiation and progression of periodontal disease during adult life. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a 26-year longitudinal investigation of the initiation and progression of chronic periodontitis that started in 1969 and included 565 men of Norwegian middle class, 223 who had participated in some, but not all, intermediate examinations presented at the last survey in 1995. Fifty-four individuals were available for examination in all seven surveys. RESULTS: Covering the age range from 16 to 60 years, the study showed that at 16 years of age, 5% of the participants had initial loss of periodontal attachment (ILA > or = 2 mm) at one or more sites. Both the subject incidence and the site incidence increased with time, and by 32 years of age, all individuals had one or more sites with loss of attachment. As age progressed, new lesions affected sites, so that as these men approached 60 years of age approximately 50% of all available sites had ILA. An assessment of the intraoral distribution of the first periodontal lesion showed that, regardless of age, molars and bicuspids were most often affected. At and before the age of 40 years, the majority of ILA was found in buccal surfaces in the form of gingival recession. By 50 years, however, a greater proportion of sites presented with attachment loss attributed to pocket formation or a combination of pocket formation and gingival recession. As individuals neared 60 years of age, approximately half of the interproximal areas in posterior teeth had these lesions. CONCLUSION: This investigation has shown that, in a well-maintained population who practises oral home care and has regular check-ups, the incidence of incipient periodontal destruction increases with age, the highest rate occurs between 50 and 60 years, and gingival recession is the predominant lesion before 40 years, while periodontal pocketing is the principal mode of destruction between 50 and 60 years of age.

The purpose of this study was to assess the rate of attachment loss during various stages of adult life in a well-maintained middle-class population.The data originated from a 26-year longitudinal study of Norwegian males who had received regular and adequate dental care and practised daily oral home care. The initial examination in 1969 included 565 individuals aged between 16 and 34 years. Subsequent examinations took place in 1971, 1973, 1975, 1981, 1988 and 1995. Thus, the study covers the age range of 16-59 years. The rate of the annual attachment loss was calculated as the difference between the individual mean attachment loss between two examinations divided by the years between examinations. The mean annualized relative risk of attachment loss was calculated as the frequency distribution of sites with initial periodontal attachment loss (loss of attachment at the first time of occurrenceor = 2 mm) and healthy sites (loss of attachment always2 mm). For comparison of significant changes in annual attachment loss rates between the age groups and mean annualized relative risks of attachment loss as they proceeded through adult life, the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U-test was used.The mean overall individual attachment loss during 44 years (between 16 and 59 years) totaled 2.44 mm (range 0.14-2.44 mm), averaging an annual mean rate of 0.05 mm/year. The highest annual rate of attachment loss occurred before 35 years of age (0.08-0.1 mm/year), after which the mean annual rate decreased to about 0.04-0.06 mm/year for the next three decades of life leading to 60 years. The mean annualized relative risk of initial attachment loss increased significantly from adolescence (1.2%) to the maximum at 30-34 years of age (6.9%). After the age of 34 years, the risk of initial attachment loss decreased again, but after the age of 40 years, another continuous increase was observed.Over a 26-year period, 25% of the subjects went through adult life with healthy and stable periodontal conditions. The remaining 75% developed slight to moderately progressing periodontal disease with progression rates varying between 0.02 and 0.1 mm/year with a cumulative mean of loss of attachment of 2.44 mm as they approached 60 years of age. The annual mean rate and the mean annualized risk of initial attachment loss were highest between 16 and 34 years of age. Only 20% of the sites continued to lose further attachment during the remainder of the observation period, and less than 1% of the sites showed substantial loss of attachment (4 mm).

To determine the adjunctive effect of grafting biomaterials/biological agents with open flap debridement (OFD) in the treatment of deep intraosseous defects.No systematic review of treatment outcomes in patients who received graft biomaterials or biological agents have been published.A rigorous systematic review of randomized controlled trials of at least 6-month duration was conducted comparing grafting biomaterials/biological agents (alone or in combination) + OFD (test group) to OFD alone or in combination with a placebo (control group).The difference in CAL change between test and control groups varied from -1.45 mm to 1.40 mm with respect to different biomaterials/biological agents. Meta-analysis showed that CAL change significantly improved after treatment for coralline calcium carbonate (weighted mean difference 0.90 mm; 95% CI: 0.53-1.27), bioactive glass (weighted mean difference 1.04 mm; 95% CI: 0.31-1.76), hydroxyapatite (weighted mean difference 1.40 mm, 95% CI 0.64-2.16), and enamel matrix proteins (weighted mean difference 1.33 mm, 95% CI 0.78-1.88). However, heterogeneity in results between studies was highly statistically significant for most of biomaterials/biologicals and could not be fully explained.Overall, the use of specific biomaterials/biologicals was more effective than OFD in improving attachment levels in intraosseous defects. Difference in CAL gain varied greatly with respect to different biomaterial/biological agent. Due to a significant heterogeneity in results between studies in most treatment groups, general conclusions about the expected clinical benefit of graft biomaterials/biologicals need to be interpreted with caution. Further research should focus on understanding this variability.

Background: One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective. Objectives: To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006. Selection criteria: All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants. Data collection and analysis: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors. Main results: Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: (1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; (2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; (3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; (4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; (5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias. Authors' conclusions: There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed. Plain language summary: As with natural teeth, dental implants can be lost due to gum disease (perimplantitis). This review looked at which are the most effective treatments to arrest perimplantitis Five studies were included in the review and evaluated five different treatment modalities. In one small study of short duration (4 months) it was shown that the use of locally applied antibiotics in addition to the deep manual cleaning of the diseased implants decreased the depth of the pockets around the implants of an additional 0.6mm in patients affected by severe forms of perimplantitis. In conclusion, at present, there is no reliable evidence to determine which is the most effective way to treat perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. The majority of trials testing more complex and expensive therapies did not show any statistically or clinically significant advantages over the deep mechanical cleaning around the affected implants.