| 1. |
- Hussain, Badra, et al.
(författare)
-
Peri-Implant Health and the Knowing-Doing Gap-A Digital Survey on Procedures and Therapies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: FRONTIERS IN DENTAL MEDICINE. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 2673-4915. ; 2
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: Peri-implant tissue maintenance and treatment is becoming a serious challenge in implantology. With increasing numbers of implants being placed, more cases of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis is seen. A digital survey on peri-implant disease management was issued to experts in periodontology and implantology to identify the tools and procedures most commonly used today to treat peri-implant diseases and successfully manage peri-implant health. The primary aim was to assess whether there is consensus in the choice of treatment to manage peri-implant diseases and to prevent their recurrence once treated. The secondary aim was to obtain insight into future protocols and /or devices, and the research and development needed.Materials and Methods: Participants in this digital survey were professionals specialising in periodontology, oral surgery, and implant dentistry. The questionnaire included both a series of closed- and open-ended questions. A total of 16 countries participated. The survey was sent by e-mail to 70 individuals, 66 received the survey and 37 of receivers responded, two of the participants were excluded due to insufficient filling of the survey. In the end 35 respondents completed the survey.Results: Respondents agree that the efficacy of mechanical and chemical decontamination of implant surfaces needs to be improved and better documented. It is a common opinion that the current remedies, mostly adapted from periodontal practises, do not provide effective and reliable clinical outcomes when treating peri-implant ailments. There is a general agreement amongst experts that regularly scheduled (3-6-month intervals) maintenance treatments are essential for maintaining peri-implant health in patients experiencing implant complications. Respondents are also concerned about unnecessary use of systemic antibiotics for managing peri-implant health.Conclusion: Regardless of agreements in parts, there was no observed consensus on the most effective treatment options for treating peri-implantitis. The experts all agree it is an urgent need for well-designed, long-term follow-up randomised and controlled clinical trials comparing interventions to provide an evidence-based strategy for peri-implant health management.
|
|
| 2. |
- Thoma, Daniel S., et al.
(författare)
-
Soft tissue management at implants: : Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 32:S21, s. 174-180
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.Materials and methods: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.Results: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.Conclusions: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.
|
|
