Anitua E

Language: Spanish
References: 22
Page: 321-328
PDF size: 548.79 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Periimplantitis is defined as the inflammatory and irreversible pathology that affects the peri-implantary bone and causes it to lose support and function to the implant as defined by the European Workshop on Periodontology (EWOP). The estimated prevalence of periimplantitis figures ranging from 28 to 77%. The different protocols for approaching periimplantitis offer different possibilities: detoxification of the surface and re-generation, mechanical cleaning and resection of inflamed tissue and extraction of the implant mainly. The main problem with regenerative treatments is to correctly clean and detoxify the surface of the exposed implant, since as these are generally highly rough surfaces, bacteria in the oral environment colonise them very easily and it is practically impossible to completely eliminate the biofilm. This treatment algorithm, in which implants severely affected by periimplantitis are removed atraumatically, guarantees the conservation of the bed at 100% since no bone volume is removed and trephines must be used, since those used in the protocol only break the bone union of the first few millimetres, without removing it. In the following clinical case, we show the re-treatment of a case of peri-implantitis where a new implant-supported rehabilitation has been performed.

REFERENCES

1. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, Weltman R. Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017; 62: 1-12.

2. Derks J, Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J Clin Periodontol. 2015; 42 (Suppl 16): S158-S171.

3. Natto ZS, Almeganni N, Alnakeeb E, Bukhari Z, Jan R, Iacono VJ. Peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis case definitions in dental research: a systematic assessment. J Oral Implantol. 2019; 45 (2): 127-131.

4. Sinjab K, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Wang HL. Decision making for management of periimplant diseases. Implant Dent. 2018; 27 (3): 276-281.

5. Suarez F, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Implant surface detoxification: a comprehensive review. Implant Dent. 2013; 22 (5): 465-473.

6. Jin SH, Lee EM, Park JB, Kim KK, Ko Y. Decontamination methods to restore the biocompatibility of contaminated titanium surfaces. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2019; 49 (3): 193-204.

7. Kotsakis GA, Lan C, Barbosa J et al. Antimicrobial agents used in the treatment of peri-implantitis alter the physicochemistry and cytocompatibility of titanium surfaces. J Periodontol. 2016; 87 (7): 809-819.

8. Covani U, Barone A, Cornelini R, Crespi R. Clinical outcome of implants placed immediately after implant removal. J Periodontol. 2006; 77 (4): 722-727.

9. Covani U, Marconcini S, Crespi R, Barone A. Immediate implant placement after removal of a failed implant: a clinical and histological case report. J Oral Implantol. 2009; 35 (4): 189-195.

10. Anitua E, Orive G. A new approach for atraumatic implant explantation and immediate implant installation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2012; 113 (3): e19-25.

11. Jovanovic S. Diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant disease. Curr Opin Periodontol. 1994; 194-204.

12. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Reasons for failures of oral implants. J Oral Rehabil. 2014; 41 (6): 443-476.

13. Wennerberg A, Ektessabi A, Albrektsson T, Johansson C, Andresson BA. A 1-year follow-up of implants of differing surface roughness placed in rabbit bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12: 486-494.

14. Wennerberg A, Hallgren C, Johansson C, Danelli S A. A histomorphometric evaluation of screw-shaped implants each prepared with two surface roughnesses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998; 9: 11-19.

15. Trisi P, Rao W, Rebaudi A. A histomorphometric comparison of smooth and rough titanium implants in human low-density jaw bone. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 1999; 14: 58-67.

16. Johansson C, Albrektsson T. Integration of screw implants in the rabbit.A 1-year follow-up of removal torque of titanium implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl. 1987; 2: 69-75.

17. Sennerby L, Thomsen P, Ericsson L.A. Morphometric and biomechanic comparison of titanium implants inserted in rabbit cortical and cancellous bone. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl. 1992; 7: 62-71.

18. Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Piñas L, Tejero R, Prado R, Orive G. Nontraumatic Implant Explantation: A Biomechanical and Biological Analysis in Sheep Tibia. J Oral Implantol. 2016; 42 (1): 3-11.

19. Cannizzaro G, Leone M, Torchio C, Viola P, Esposito M. Immediate versus early loading of 7-mm-long flapless-placed single implants: a split-mouth randomised controlled clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2008; 1: 277-292.

20. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Iezzi G, Carinci F. Immediately loaded short implants: analysis of a case series of 133 implants. Quintessence Int. 2007; 38: 193-201.

21. Anitua E, Flores C, Flores J, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical effectiveness of 6.5-mm long implants to support two-implant fixed prostheses in premolar-molar region: the influence of immediate loading and the length of splinting implant. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e688-e693. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12761.

22. Alvira-González J, Díaz-Campos E, Sánchez-Garcés MA, Gay-Escoda C. Survival of immediately versus delayed loaded short implants: a prospective case series study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015; 20: e480-488.