The Effects of Anti-infective Preventive Measures on the Occurrence of Biologic Implant Complications and Implant Loss: A Systematic Review

Purpose: To systematically appraise whether anti-infective protocols are effective in preventing biologic implant complications and implant loss after a mean observation period ≥ 10 years after loading. Materials and Methods: An electronic search of Medline via PubMed and Embase via Ovid databases complemented by manual search was conducted up to October 31, 2012. Studies were included provided that they were published in English, German, French, or Italian, and conducted on ≥ 20 partially and fully edentulous patients with dental implants and regular (≥ 1×/year) supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) over a mean observation period ≥ 10 years. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Authors were contacted if required. Collected data were reported by descriptive methods. Results: The initial electronic search resulted in the identification of 994 titles from Medline via PubMed and 531 titles from Embase via Ovid databases, respectively. After elimination of duplicate titles and exclusion of 60 full-text articles, 143 articles were analyzed, resulting in 15 studies eligible for qualitative analysis. The implant survival rate ranged from 85.7% to 99.2% after a mean observation period ≥ 10 years. One comparative study assessed the effects of regular SPT on the occurrence of biologic complications and implant loss. Overall, regular diagnosis and implementation of anti-infective therapeutic protocols were effective in the management of biological complications and prevention of implant loss. Residual probing depths at the end of active periodontal therapy and development of reinfection during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) represented a significant risk for the onset of peri-implantitis and implant loss. Comparative studies indicated that implant survival and success rates were lower in periodontally compromised vs noncompromised patients. Conclusions: In order to achieve high long-term survival and success rates of dental implants and their restorations, enrollment in regular SPT including anti-infective preventive measures should be implemented. Therapy of peri-implant mucositis should be considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Completion of active periodontal therapy should precede implant placement in periodontally compromised patients. Palabras clave: bone loss, complication, dental implants, implant loss, implant survival, peri-implantitis, prevention, prophylaxis, supportive periodontal therapy