Hatem Alassy

The use of biocompatible membranes in periodontal and oral surgery is an important part of regeneration. Over the years, several different membranes have been developed, ranging from non-resorbable membranes that have to be removed in a separate procedure, to collagen membranes that completely resorb on their own, thus avoiding the need for a second surgery. Autogenous membranes are becoming increasingly popular in more recent years. These membranes can be used with a great variety of techniques in the four main hard tissue regenerative procedures: guided tissue regeneration, alveolar ridge preservation, guided bone regeneration and sinus floor augmentation. A review of the literature was conducted in order to identify the most commonly used membranes in clinical practice, as well as the most promising ones for regeneration procedures in the future. The information provided in this review may serve as a guide to clinicians, in order to select the most applicable membrane for the clinical case treated as the correct choice of materials may be critical in the procedure’s success.

Periodontal and peri-implant diseases are of rising concern due to their increasing prevalence, potential complications and financial consequences. Etiologic factors primarily are putative microorganisms while therapy involves mechanical debridement of the dental plaque biofilm. This treatment is performed non-surgically or surgically. Due to the diversity of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions, practitioners seek adjuvants to improve therapeutic outcomes and limit the likelihood of residual or refractory disease. Antimicrobials may improve therapeutic success by altering the local pathogenic microflora and limiting the systemic spread of opportunistic infections. The use of antimicrobial adjuncts in dentistry is controversial, and there is a need to assess their validity in order to improve the success rates of periodontal and implant therapy whilst minimizing complications or adverse effects. This review aims to provide a summary of the current status of antimicrobial use for periodontal and peri-implant disease management. Adjunctive therapy may include systemic antibiotics, local antimicrobials, supra and sub-gingival antimicrobial irrigants, antimicrobial oral rinses, antiplaque and anti-calculus agents, photodynamic and laser therapies. Periodontal and peri-implant conditions are detailed, and adjunct antimicrobial options are summarized and their benefits are weighed against their potential side-effects. We proposed a standardized protocol for the adjunctive use of local and systemic antimicrobials in the management of periodontal or peri-implant diseases and conditions.

Since the use of dental implants is continuously increasing, it is imperative for dental practitioners to understand the nature and treatment of peri-implant diseases. The purpose of this manuscript is to comprehensively review peri-implant diseases, their characteristics, as well as their non-surgical and surgical treatment. To that end, the current literature was searched and a narrative review was conducted. It is essential that the case definitions described in the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions are used to diagnose and classify peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. While recent epidemiologic studies on peri-implant diseases exist, there is great heterogeneity in the definition of these conditions. Several risk factors and indicators are reported in the literature, with smoking and diabetes being the most universally accepted. In peri-implant mucositis, non-surgical treatment seems to be sufficient. However, for the treatment of peri-implantitis, a surgical approach, which includes open-flap debridement, apically positioned flap and guided bone regeneration, is considered more appropriate. A great variety of adjuncts to mechanical treatment have been reported with controversial results. Finally, studies comparing results from different peri-implantitis treatments are warranted in randomized controlled clinical trials in order to provide stronger evidence-based approaches.

Dental implant diseases, peri-implantitis (PI) and peri-implant mucositis (PIM), have shown wide prevalence in recent studies. Despite the prevalence, diagnosing peri-implant disease (PID) remains challenging as common diagnostic methods of periodontal probing and radiographs may be inaccurate. These methods only document pre-existing destruction rather than current disease activity. Furthermore, there is no current model to predict the progression of PID. Though a predictive model is lacking, biomarkers may offer some potential. Biomarkers are commonly used in medicine to objectively determine disease state, or responses to a therapeutic intervention. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) biomarkers have moderate diagnostic validity in periodontitis. Biomarkers in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) also show promising results in regard to their diagnostic and prognostic value. The aim of this review is to summarize the current knowledge of PICF biomarkers in the diagnosis of PID and evaluate their validity to predict disease progression. This review found that PICF studies utilize different methods of sampling and interpretation with varying validity (sensitivity and specificity). A number of promising diagnostic techniques were identified. Commercially available chair-side tests for MMP-8 to diagnose periodontal disease and PID activity are now available. Future directions include proteomics and metabolomics for accurate, site-specific diagnosis and prediction of PID progression. Although more research is needed, this review concludes that the assessment of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-1β, TNFα, MMP-8) in the PICF may be of value to diagnose PI and PIM but current research remains insufficient to indicate whether biomarkers predict peri-implant disease progression.