Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
PERIODONTOLOGY 2000
Indication/treatment planning
Whereas initially only fully edentulous patients with
optimal jaw bone dimensions (width and height)
were the basic indication for implant therapy, now
nearly every edentulous space is considered as suitable for implant placement. In situations where
insufcient bone is available for implant therapy,
bone-augmentation techniques are routinely considmmerle (3) concluded that such
ered. Benic & Ha
techniques are highly predictable if the proper indications are respected and appropriate healing time
is allowed for bone regeneration. Another approach
is the use of the zygoma when the maxillary bone is
severely atrophic. As discussed by Aparicio et al. (1),
the zygomatic implant technique offers the possibility to treat highly complex situations with low morbidity. The bone height in the posterior maxilla is
often limited and a sinus lift procedure is recommended. Besides the conventional lateral window
technique, a less invasive transalveolar approach is
described by Pjetursson & Lang (26). As an alternative to surgical bone regeneration, various studies
have reported successful outcome with the use of
short implants in the mandible as well as in the
maxilla. Nisand & Renouard (24) discuss the indications and evidence-based efcacy of the use of
short and narrow implants. The esthetic outcome of
implant therapy is addressed by Merheb et al. (21)
and Thoma et al. (34). Merheb et al. (21) review
the optimal implant-placement within the bone
Quirynen et al.
Table 1. Changes to the original standard implant protocol of the 1970s to 1980s
Current changes to implant protocols
Original protocol (strict, biocompatibility = crucial)
Indication/planning
Primarily fully edentulous patients
Timing
Four to 6 months of healing after tooth extraction
Immediate placement
Two-stage surgery
One-stage surgery
Nonsubmerged healing
Immediate loading
Surgical protocol
Only specialists
General dentists
No surgical guides
Presurgical antibiotics
No atropine
Single aspiration
Palatally/lingually pediculated ap
Crestal incision
Prosthetic protocol
Abutments not removed after the second surgery
Titanium abutments
Implants interconnected
Free-standing implants
Screw retained
Cemented
Occlusion in resin
Occlusion in porcelain/metal
Implant material/design
Minimally rough implants
Internal connection
Table 1. (Continued)
Current changes to implant protocols
Implants diameter: 3.5 mm and length: 10 mm
Short/narrow implants
No platform switch
Platform switch
Overall appreciation
Very strict protocol, biocompatibility = crucial
Surgical protocol
The classical implant surgical protocol has changed signicantly over the years (Table 1). The focus
on maximal attention to sterility has diminished,
and even the need for systemic antibiotic cover is
questioned (9, 32). The introduction of threedimensional imaging has led to improvements in
preoperative diagnosis and implant surgery (12).
The complex anatomy of the jaws and the implications in implant surgery are discussed by Jacobs
et al. (14), and the use of cone beam computed
tomography for diagnosis/planning of dental
implant therapy is reviewed by Jacobs & Quirynen
(15). Guided surgery can improve the positioning
of implants, shorten the surgical time and reduce
postoperative complications. The advantages/disadvantages of guided implant surgery, either dynamic
or static, are reviewed respectively by Vercruyssen
et al. (36) and Vercruyssen et al. (37).
Peri-implant diseases
Two major infectious processes, designated apical
peri-implantitis and marginal peri-implant diseases,
may develop around successfully integrated dental
implants. Clinical studies have demonstrated that
apical peri-implantitis is strongly linked with periapical pathology around an extracted tooth at the
implant site (18). Temmerman et al. (33) discuss the
etiology, diagnosis and treatment of apical peri-implantitis. Marginal peri-implant diseases are dened
as inammatory processes of infectious origin of
the marginal peri-implant tissues. Similarly to periodontitis, marginal peri-impant diseases have a multifactorial etiology (Fig. 1). Two types of marginal
peri-implant diseases have been identied. Periimplant mucositis affects the peri-implant mucosa
without evidence of peri-implant crestal bone
loss, whereas peri-implantitis denotes inammation
Quirynen et al.
associated with bone loss. Whilst peri-implant mucositis has clinical and histopathological characteristics
similar to gingivitis, peri-implantitis exhibits distinct
characteristics in terms of rate of progression and
histopathology. Concerning treatment response,
peri-implant mucositis is reversible with appropriate
therapy, but the treatment of peri-implantitis is
unpredictable and suffers from the lack of an
evidence-based treatment protocol. Figuero et al.
(10) discuss the two marginal peri-implant diseases in
terms of etiopathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy.
The chronic inammation that denes periimplant diseases depends not only on the degree of
microbial accumulation and the composition of the
implant-associated biolm, but also on factors relating to the implant and the patient. Some of the
patient risk factors may be behaviourally based, and
therefore modiable, such as lack of oral hygiene and
smoking; however, other risk factors are not modiable, such as genetic susceptibility to infection and
systemic health status (e.g. diabetes).
Prosthetic protocol/materials
As shown in Table 1, changes have also occurred in
implant composition and macro-design, in implant
abutment connection and in restorative materials
and protocols. Although the new types of material
and therapy can inuence the outcome of implant
therapy, they are not dealt with in this volume of
Periodontology 2000.
Conclusions
Implant dentistry has changed signicantly during
the past 40 years. At the introduction of the osseointegration principle, implant placement and restoration were mostly carried out by specialists, but such
10
therefore should be carried out with appropriate caution. Guided bone regeneration is becoming an
accepted treatment option, either prior to, or simultaneously with, implant insertion. The use of resorbable
barrier membranes can simplify surgical procedures,
but requires careful attention to new guidelines, as
highlighted in this volume. It is now generally
accepted that horizontal bone augmentation is a predictable therapy, but this is not the case for vertical
augmentation. Current advances in implantology are
adversely affected by an unexpected high prevalence
of peri-implantitis. As no well-dened treatment is
currently available to arrest peri-implantitis, or to
regenerate bone lost to infection, the prevention of
peri-implantitis becomes even more important.
Finally, it is, of course, always important to keep
the patient at the center of any treatment planning
and to consider carefully his/her special wishes and
expectations. Not all patients need a xed restoration.
A simple overdenture can offer several advantages for
many patients, including a less demanding positioning of the implants, lower costs and simplicity of
maintenance.
References
ndez J,
1. Aparicio C, Manresa C, Francisco K, Claros P, Ala
lez-Martn O, Albrektsson T. Zygomatic implants:
Gonza
indications, techniques & outcomes; zygomatic success
code. Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 4158.
2. Beikler T, Flemmig TF. Implants in the medically compromised patient. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2003: 14: 305316.
mmerle CHF. Horizontal bone augmentation
3. Benic GI, Ha
by means of guided bone regeneration. Periodontol 2000
2014: 66: 1340.
4. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic conditions
and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009: 24: 1227.
5. Chen ST, Buser D. Clinical and esthetic outcomes of
implants placed in postextraction sites. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants 2009: 24: 186217.
10. Figuero E, Graziani F, Sanz I, Herrera D, Sanz M. Management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.
Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 255273.
mmerle CH, Arau
jo MG, Simion M, Osteology Consensus
11. Ha
Group 2011. Evidence-based knowledge on the biology and
treatment of extraction sockets. Clin Oral Implants Res
2012: 23: 8082.
ndahl K, Jacobs R, Helmrot E,
12. Harris D, Horner K, Gro
Benic GI, Bornstein MM, Dawood A, Quirynen M, E.A.O.
guidelines for the use of diagnostic imaging in implant
dentistry 2011. A consensus workshop organized by the
European Association for Osseointegration at the Medical
University of Warsaw. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012: 23:
12431253.
13. Hwang D, Wang HL. Medical contraindications to implant
therapy: part I: absolute contraindications. Implant Dent
2006: 15: 353360.
14. Jacobs R, Bornstein MM, Quirynen M. Neurovascular
disturbances after implant surgery. Periodontol 2000 2014:
66: 188202.
15. Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justication for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 203213.
16. Jemt T, Stenport V, Friberg B. Implant treatment with xed
prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Part 1: implants and
biologic response in two patient cohorts restored between
1986 and 1987 and 15 years later. Int J Prosthodont 2011:
24: 345355.
17. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS.
Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of
biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single
crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a
mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012: 23:
221.
18. Lefever D, Van Assche N, Temmerman A, Teughels W,
Quirynen M. Aetiology, microbiology and therapy of periapical lesions around oral implants: a retrospective analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2013: 40: 296302.
19. Madrid C, Sanz M. What inuence do anticoagulants have
on oral implant therapy? A systematic review. Clin Oral
Implants Res 2009: 20: 96106.
20. Madrid C, Sanz M. What impact do systemically administrated bisphosphonates have on oral implant therapy? A
systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009: 20: 8795.
21. Merheb J, Quirynen M, Teughels W. Critical buccal bone
dimensions along implants. Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 97
105.
22. Mombelli A, Cionca N. Systemic diseases affecting osseointegration therapy. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006: 17: 97103.
23. Nicu EA, Van Assche N, Coucke W, Teughels W, Quirynen
M. RCT comparing implants with turned and anodically
oxidized surfaces: a pilot study, a 3-year follow-up. J Clin
Periodontol 2012: 39: 11831190.
24. Nisand D, Renouard F. Short implant in limited bone
volume. Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 7296.
25. Paquette DW, Brodala N, Williams RC. Risk factors for
dental implant failure. Dent Clin North Am 2006: 50: 361
374.
26. Pjetursson BE, Lang N. Sinus oor elevation utilizing the
trans-alveolar approach. Periodontol 2000 2014: 66: 5971.
27. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A
systematic review of the survival and complication rates of
11
Quirynen et al.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
12