Peri-implant inflammation defined by the implant-abutment interface

An implant-abutment interface at the alveolar bone crest is associated with sustained peri-implant inflammation; however, whether magnitude of inflammation is proportionally dependent upon interface position remains unknown. This study compared the distribution and density of inflammatory cells surrounding implants with a supracrestal, crestal, or subcrestal implant-abutment interface. All implants developed a similar pattern of peri-implant inflammation: neutrophilic polymorphonuclear leukocytes (neutrophils) maximally accumulated at or immediately coronal to the interface. However, peri-implant neutrophil accrual increased progressively as the implant-abutment interface depth increased, i.e., subcrestal interfaces promoted a significantly greater maximum density of neutrophils than did supracrestal interfaces (10,512 +/- 691 vs. 2398 +/- 1077 neutrophils/mm(2)). Moreover, inflammatory cell accumulation below the original bone crest was significantly correlated with bone loss. Thus, the implant-abutment interface dictates the intensity and location of peri-implant inflammatory cell accumulation, a potential contributing component in the extent of implant-associated alveolar bone loss.

The Peri-Implant Sulcus Compared with Internal Implant and Suprastructure Components: A Microbiological Analysis

Purpose: A recent in vivo study has shown considerable contamination of internal implant and suprastructure components with great biodiversity, indicating bacterial leakage along the implant-abutment interface, abutment-prosthesis interface, and restorative margins. The goal of the present study was to compare microbiologically the peri-implant sulcus to these internal components on implants with no clinical signs of peri-implantitis and in function for many years. Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization was used to identify and quantify 40 species. Material and Methods: Fifty-eight turned titanium Brånemark implants in eight systemically healthy patients (seven women, one man) under regular supportive care were examined. All implants had been placed in the maxilla and loaded with a screw-retained full-arch bridge for an average of 9.6 years. Gingival fluid samples were collected from the deepest sulcus per implant for microbiological analysis. As all fixed restorations were removed, the cotton pellet enclosed in the intra-coronal compartment and the abutment screw were retrieved and microbiologically evaluated. Results: The pellet enclosed in the suprastructure was very similar to the peri-implant sulcus in terms of bacterial detection frequencies and levels for practically all the species included in the panel. Yet, there was virtually no microbial link between these compartments. When comparing the abutment screw to the peri-implant sulcus, the majority of the species were less frequently found, and in lower numbers at the former. However, a relevant link in counts for a lot of bacteria was described between these compartments. Even though all implants in the present study showed no clinical signs of peri-implantitis, the high prevalence of numerous species associated with pathology was striking. Conclusions: Intra-coronal compartments of screw-retained fixed restorations were heavily contaminated. The restorative margin may have been the principal pathway for bacterial leakage. Contamination of abutment screws most likely occurred from the peri-implant sulcus via the implant-abutment interface and abutment-prosthesis interface.

Soft and hard tissue histologic dimensions around dental implants in the canine restored with smaller-diameter abutments: a paradigm shift in peri-implant biology

PURPOSE To evaluate the biologic width dimensions around implants with nonmatching implant-abutment diameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five canines had their mandibular premolars and first molars removed bilaterally and replaced with 12 implants that had nonmatching implant-abutment diameters. On one side, six implants were placed in a submerged surgical approach, and the other side utilized a nonsubmerged approach. Two of the implants on each side were placed either 1 mm above, even with, or 1 mm below the alveolar crest. Two months later, gold crowns were attached, and the dogs were sacrificed 6 months postloading. Block sections were processed for histologic and histomorphometric analyses. RESULTS The bone level, connective tissue length, epithelial dimension, and biologic width were not significantly different when the implants were initially placed in a submerged or nonsubmerged surgical approach. The bone level was significantly different around implants placed 1 mm above the crest compared to implants placed even with or 1 mm below the alveolar crest. The connective tissue dimension was not different for any implant level placement. The epithelial dimension and biologic width were significantly greater for implants placed 1 mm below the alveolar crest compared to implants placed even with or 1 mm above the alveolar crest. For five of six implant placements, connective tissue covered the implant/abutment interface. CONCLUSIONS This study reveals a fundamental change in the biologic response to implants with nonmatching implant-abutment diameters. Unlike implants with matching implant-abutment diameters, the connective tissue extended coronally past the interface (microgap). This morphologic tissue alteration represents a significant change in the biologic reaction to implant-abutment interfaces and suggests that marginal inflammation is eliminated or greatly reduced in these implant designs.

Long-term clinical, microbiological, and radiographic outcomes of Brånemark™ implants installed in augmented maxillary bone for fixed full-arch rehabilitation

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to document the long-term outcome of Brånemark implants installed in augmented maxillary bone and to identify parameters that are associated with peri-implant bone level. MATERIAL AND METHODS Patients of a periodontal practice who had been referred to a maxillofacial surgeon for iliac crest bone grafting in the atrophic maxilla were retrospectively recruited. Five months following grafting, they received 7-8 turned Brånemark implants. Following submerged healing of another 5 months, implants were uncovered and restorative procedures for fixed rehabilitation were initiated 2-3 months thereafter. The primary outcome variable was bone level defined as the distance from the implant-abutment interface to the first visible bone-to-implant contact. Secondary outcome variables included plaque index, bleeding index, probing depth, and levels of 40 species in subgingival plaque samples as identified by means of checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. RESULTS Nine out of 16 patients (eight females, one male; mean age 59) with 71 implants agreed to come in for evaluation after on average 9 years (SD 4; range 3-13) of function. One implant was deemed mobile at the time of inspection. Clinical conditions were acceptable with 11% of the implants showing pockets ≥ 5 mm. Periodontopathogens were encountered frequently and in high numbers. Clinical parameters and bacterial levels were highly patient dependent. The mean bone level was 2.30 mm (SD 1.53; range 0.00-6.95), with 23% of the implants demonstrating advanced resorption (bone level > 3 mm). Regression analysis showed a significant association of the patient (p < .001) and plaque index (p = .007) with bone level. CONCLUSIONS The long-term outcome of Brånemark implants installed in iliac crest-augmented maxillary bone is acceptable; however, advanced peri-implant bone loss is rather common and indicative of graft resorption. This phenomenon is patient dependent and seems also associated with oral hygiene.

Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface

Purpose: The aim of this paper was to review the clinical literature on the Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and Periotest techniques in order to assess the validity and prognostic value of each technique to detect implants at risk for failure. Material and methods: A search was made using the PubMed database to find clinical studies using the RFA and/or Periotest techniques. Results: A limited number of clinical reports were found. No randomized-controlled clinical trials or prospective cohort studies could be found for validity testing of the techniques. Consequently, only a narrative review was prepared to cover general aspects of the techniques, factors influencing measurements and the clinical relevance of the techniques. Conclusions: Factors such as bone density, upper or lower jaw, abutment length and supracrestal implant length seem to influence both RFA and Periotest measurements. Data suggest that high RFA and low Periotest values indicate successfully integrated implants and that low/decreasing RFA and high/increasing Periotest values may be signs of ongoing disintegration and/or marginal bone loss. However, single readings using any of the techniques are of limited clinical value. The prognostic value of the RFA and Periotest techniques in predicting loss of implant stability has yet to be established in prospective clinical studies. To cite this article: Aparicio C, Lang N P, Rangert B. Validity and clinical significance of biomechanical testing of implant/bone interface. Clin. Oral Imp. Res., 17 (Suppl. 2), 2006; 2-7.

Management of a complication with a fractured zirconia implant abutment in the esthetic zone

Technical complications in implant prosthetic cases represent a major challenge in dentistry. This case report describes minimally invasive management to recover an implant with a fractured remnant of a zirconia abutment, including provisional rehabilitation during a sequential treatment protocol in the esthetic zone. A patient was treated with a screw-retained one-piece implant-supported reconstruction made of a customized zirconia abutment with direct ceramic veneering in the maxillary right central incisor position. During the prosthetic try-in, a fracture in the apical portion of the abutment was evident. The first rescue attempt led to fracture of the retrieval instrument. Immediately, an individualized wired construction was applied to bond the existing fractured reconstruction to the neighboring teeth to maintain the peri-implant mucosal architecture. Because the implant screw canal was blocked, a customized round bur had to be manufactured and was placed in the implant axis with a specific bracket tool from the service set to protect the interior implant threads. Then, the drills of the service set were guided by the newly created access to remove the fractured remnants. The implant screw was retapped and the area rinsed with chlorhexidine solution. All remnants were removed without the need for surgical intervention. Neither the implant connection nor the bone-to-implant interface was damaged. The stepwise treatment approach with the customized round bur combined with the system-specific drills of the service set saved the blocked implant so that the patient could be successfully rehabilitated with a new implant reconstruction.