Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Objectives To answer the focused question, ‘In animals or patients with dental implants, does implant surface characteristics and/or implant material have an effect on incidence and progression of peri‐implantitis?’ Material and Methods Pre‐clinical in vivo experiments on experimental peri‐implantitis and clinical trials with any aim and design, and ≥5 years follow‐up, where the effect of ≥2 different type of implant material and/or surface characteristics on peri‐implantitis incidence or severity, and/or progression, implant survival or losses due to peri‐implantitis, and/or marginal bone levels/loss was assessed. Results Meta‐analyses based on data of pre‐clinical experiments, using the ligature induced peri‐implantitis model in the dog, indicated that after the spontaneous progression phase implants with a modified surface showed significantly greater radiographic bone loss (effect size 0.44 mm; 95%CI 0.10–0.79; p = .012; 8 publications) and area of infiltrated connective tissue (effect size 0.75 mm 2 ; 95%CI 0.15–1.34; p = .014; 5 publications) compared to non‐modified surfaces. However, in 9 out of the 18 included experiments, reported in 25 publications, no significant differences were shown among the different implant surface types assessed. Clinical and/or radiographic data from 7605 patients with 26,188 implants, reported in 31 publications (20 RCTs, 3 CTs, 4 prospective cohort, and 4 retrospective studies; 12 with follow‐up ≥10 years), overall did not show significant differences in the incidence of peri‐implantitis, when this was reported or could be inferred, among the various implant surfaces. In general, high survival rates (90–100%) up to 30 years and no clinically relevant differences in marginal bone loss/levels, merely compatible with crestal remodelling, were presented for the various implant types. Conclusion Pre‐clinical in vivo experiments indicate that surface characteristics of modified implants may have a significant negative impact on peri‐implantitis progression, while clinical studies do not support the notion that there is a difference in peri‐implantitis incidence among the various types of implant surfaces. No assumptions can be made regarding the possible impact of implant material on incidence and/or peri‐implantitis progression due to limited information.
Stavropoulos et al. (Fri,) studied this question.