ライフサイエンスコーパス: peri-implantitis

1 ws for bacterial invasion, which may lead to peri-implantitis.

2 ogens Pg, Pi, Tf, and Fn are associated with peri-implantitis.

3 ies do not seem to play an important role in peri-implantitis.

4 was associated with 86% fewer conditions of peri-implantitis.

5 association between titanium dissolution and peri-implantitis.

6 for studies of initiation and progression of peri-implantitis.

7 o develop a novel rat model of polymicrobial peri-implantitis.

8 implants include peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

9 f the disease to assist in the prevention of peri-implantitis.

10 rats were used for the study of experimental peri-implantitis.

11 reduced support, and 3) recurrent/refractory peri-implantitis.

12 tification of microorganisms associated with peri-implantitis.

13 cted from healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis.

14 yromonas gingivalis (Pg), in the etiology of peri-implantitis.

15 in resolution of inflammation could prevent peri-implantitis.

16 ful in the early prevention and treatment of peri-implantitis.

17 8) 3-month supportive care for treatment of peri-implantitis.

18 up to 10% of implants must be removed due to peri-implantitis.

19 ples from healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis.

20 may be proposed for use in the treatment of peri-implantitis.

21 nd Campylobacter rectus with the etiology of peri-implantitis.

22 suggests the association of Eubacterium with peri-implantitis.

23 transitional phase during the development of peri-implantitis.

24 ngs in soft tissue biopsies of implants with peri-implantitis.

25 ost-effectiveness of preventing and treating peri-implantitis.

26 en oral diseases: peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

27 -implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

28 diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

29 atment outcomes after surgical management of peri-implantitis.

30 ated as phase I therapy for the treatment of peri-implantitis.

31 cy of different surgical approaches to treat peri-implantitis.

32 , and sclerostin as prognostic biomarkers in peri-implantitis.

33 English that applied surgeries for treating peri-implantitis.

34 applied detoxification methods for treating peri-implantitis.

35 identify potential prognostic biomarkers of peri-implantitis.

36 the other treatment modalities for managing peri-implantitis.

37 -implant status after surgical treatment for peri-implantitis.

38 dy sample included patients with and without peri-implantitis.

39 ant mucosa of both patients with and without peri-implantitis.

40 sk groups is essential to reduce the risk of peri-implantitis.

41 ss of reconstructive procedures for treating peri-implantitis.

42 -implant mucositis, or chronic periodontitis/peri-implantitis.

43 40% of the implants showed mucositis and 10% peri-implantitis.

44 of mucositis, and a 14 times greater risk of peri-implantitis.

45 risk of developing peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.

46 ree main microbial consortia associated with peri-implantitis.

47 r non-surgical treatment of mild to moderate peri-implantitis.

48 ucted in consecutive patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis.

49 be further considered as risk indicators of peri-implantitis.

50 ant crowns in place, we checked for cases of peri-implantitis.

51 s a crucial role on the onset/progression of peri-implantitis.

52 ses into health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis.

53 s in marginal bone loss, implant failure, or peri-implantitis.

54 ible, to avoid complications associated with peri-implantitis.

55 presents a new approach in the management of peri-implantitis.

56 strated benefit in mild to moderate cases of peri-implantitis.

57 variables correlated with the occurrence of peri-implantitis.

58 ne that may help explain the pathogenesis of peri-implantitis.

59 gival debridement in patients afflicted with peri-implantitis.

60 the marginal bone loss around implants with peri-implantitis.

61 ed to represent significant risk factors for peri-implantitis.

62 amic dental implants that exhibited signs of peri-implantitis.

63 epth, and defect morphology in patients with peri-implantitis.

64 the association of systemic conditions with peri-implantitis.

65 ntenance, and placement of >=2 implants) for peri-implantitis.

66 implants displayed SUP within patients with peri-implantitis.

67 n of implants and peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

68 ion in response to chronic periodontitis and peri-implantitis.

69 sk indicators for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

70 pe-2 diabetic and non-diabetic patients with peri-implantitis.

71 cacious treatment modality for patients with peri-implantitis?

72 were identified after resective treatment of peri-implantitis: 1) peri-implant health with a reduced

73 s in seven patients were previously lost for peri-implantitis (2.2% and 4.5% at implant- and patient-

74 ucositis (3.10 mg/L, IQR 2.35, p < 0.001) or peri-implantitis (2.7 mg/L, IQR 2.53, p = 0.002) when co

75 ts of prognosis, including the following: 1) peri-implantitis; 2) etiology; 3) awareness; 4) attitude

76 of knowledge, awareness, and attitudes about peri-implantitis; 2) information provided by dentists/sp

77 cted from 164 participants (52 patients with peri-implantitis, 54 with mucositis, and 58 with healthy

78 n were frequent findings among patients with peri-implantitis (64%), and 32% reported that living wit

79 mucositis (10.8%), and 24 implants exhibited peri-implantitis (7.6%).

80 , 57 (n(implants) = 334) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis according to the established case defin

81 dents ranked biologic advances, treatment of peri-implantitis, advances in digital dentistry, develop

82 les revealed nearly complete coverage of the peri-implantitis-affected parts by the graft material.

83 Peri-implantitis-affected surface conditioning with citr

84 devoid of any bone particle adhesion to the peri-implantitis-affected surfaces.

85 ded clot adhesion to citric acid-conditioned peri-implantitis-affected surfaces.

86 n four patients and one in six implants have peri-implantitis after 11 years.

87 The prevalence of peri-implantitis after 6 to 7 years was 4.7% and 3.6% wh

88 espectively, and the cumulative incidence of peri-implantitis among patients was 24.4%.

89 nd success rates as well as the incidence of peri-implantitis among patients with a history of period

90 Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis among the study cohort was evaluated, c

91 Peri-implantitis, an inflammation caused by biofilm form

92 Submucosal plaque from 20 implants with peri-implantitis and 20 healthy implants was collected w

93 without MetS, where 26.3% of implants showed peri-implantitis and 55.5% mucositis.

94 nificantly reduce the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis and bring new risk factors into focus.

95 crude association between moderate to severe peri-implantitis and CVD (odds ratio = 2.18, 95% CI, 1.0

96 The associated microbiota resembles that of peri-implantitis and destructive periodontal disease in

97 oss around teeth increased the occurrence of peri-implantitis and implant loss.

98 have a poor understanding and perception of peri-implantitis and its impact.

99 s in plaque associated with ligature-induced peri-implantitis and ligature-induced periodontitis were

100 sures were implant success, implant failure (peri-implantitis and loss of osseointegration), marginal

101 Comparisons between peri-implantitis and mucositis demonstrated significantl

102 whereas 22.5% and 56.2% were diagnosed with peri-implantitis and mucositis, respectively.

103 Again, few differences were detected between peri-implantitis and mucositis.

104 ifferential diagnoses compared with marginal peri-implantitis and other implant-related conditions.

105 ival OB of patients with type 2 diabetes and peri-implantitis and patients with peri-implantitis with

106 e odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis for cement-

107 Biomarker levels were similar in peri-implantitis and periodontitis groups (P >0.05).

108 ociated with the progression of experimental peri-implantitis and periodontitis induced concurrently

109 ociated with the progression of experimental peri-implantitis and periodontitis occurring concurrentl

110 t regimens may require revisions to minimize peri-implantitis and prevent bone loss.

111 ubjects presenting at least one implant with peri-implantitis and received surgical anti-infective th

112 hy peri-implant conditions and patients with peri-implantitis and to explore the influence of various

113 y is to investigate the treatment outcome of peri-implantitis and to identify factors influencing the

114 eters of subjects that have been treated for peri-implantitis and were enrolled in a regular maintena

115 tis (group A), non-diabetic individuals with peri-implantitis and without diabetes (group B), and ind

116 ble to bleeding upon probing, periodontitis, peri-implantitis, and tooth loss.

117 h (58 implants [19 healthy, 20 mucositis, 19 peri-implantitis] and 39 natural teeth [19 healthy, 12 g

118 A large number of treatments for peri-implantitis are available, but their cost-effective

119 d with subgingival plaque from patients with peri-implantitis are evaluated in terms of: 1) plaque an

120 logic factors for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are presented, including: foreign body

121 The main bacterial species associated with peri-implantitis are recognized as periodontal pathogens

122 e designs affecting the early progression of peri-implantitis are scarce.

123 ribution of the cell population was found in peri-implantitis around CI compared with TI.

124 Peri-implantitis around CI in comparison with TI seems t

125 diation for regenerative surgical therapy of peri-implantitis-associated osseous defects.

126 This constituted a drop in peri-implantitis at both patient and implant level of ne

127 s demonstrated to influence the incidence of peri-implantitis at implant but not patient level.

128 ht of evidence for microorganisms related to peri-implantitis based on results of association studies

129 he decontamination of titanium implants with peri-implantitis, based on their antimicrobial effect.

130 Peri-implantitis begins to appear more frequently after

131 nd in increased count/abundance/frequency in peri-implantitis belonged to Bacteria domain and viruses

132 Thirty-six human peri-implantitis biopsies were analyzed using light micr

133 and management of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis by periodontists in the United States.

134 >=1 implant who were surgically treated for peri-implantitis by resective therapy.

135 overing (week 28); induction of experimental peri-implantitis by the use of three ligatures (weeks 31

136 nsufficient for a clear conclusion regarding peri-implantitis cases.

137 samples were collected from 85 patients with peri-implantitis (cases) and from 69 patients with only

138 nical outcomes of a concept for non-surgical peri-implantitis combining stepwise mechanical debrideme

139 nical outcomes of a concept for non-surgical peri-implantitis combining stepwise mechanical debrideme

140 microbial profiles or entire microbiomes of peri-implantitis compared with healthy implants or perio

141 ed in submucosal plaque around implants with peri-implantitis compared with healthy implants, indicat

142 ere significantly increased in patients with peri-implantitis compared with patients with healthy per

143 ) for mucositis and OR 15.26 (P = 0.001) for peri-implantitis, compared with subjects without MetS, w

144 frequent finding and that the prevalence of peri-implantitis correlates with loading time.

145 ium brush in the reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis could enhance long-term outcomes.

146 t in comparison to conventional treatment of peri-implantitis could not be identified.

147 For example, peri-implantitis defects >=50% and 25% to 50% MBL were 1

148 gical approaches have been proposed to treat peri-implantitis defects with limited effectiveness and

149 sue breakdown and at regeneration of bone in peri-implantitis defects.

150 A trend of higher prevalence of peri-implantitis defined by detectable RBL beyond the ph

151 Forty hopeless implants with peri-implantitis designated for removal were included in

152 p and miRNA-150-5p could be related with the peri-implantitis development.

153 A-21-3p and miRNA-150-5p was associated with peri-implantitis diagnosis (OR:0.23, CI 0.08-0.66, P = 0

154 Although not associated with peri-implantitis diagnosis risk, keratinized mucosa (KM)

155 The mean follow-up before peri-implantitis diagnosis was 99.47 +/- 47.93 months.

156 shown to significantly increase the risk of peri-implantitis diagnosis.

157 Peri-implantitis did not differ significantly from mucos

158 cause peri-implant mucositis may progress to peri-implantitis, effective treatment resulting in resol

159 ears, seven males/eight females) with severe peri-implantitis (eight CI, seven TI).

160 The incidence of peri-implantitis exhibited a peak rate after the seventh

161 Due to the risk of peri-implantitis, following dental implant placement, th

162 ory of periodontal disease were obtained for peri-implantitis for both implant and patient levels.

163 d Td levels were significantly higher in the peri-implantitis group (P <0.05).

164 concentration of titanium was higher in the peri-implantitis group compared with the group without p

165 Patients with type 2 diabetes with peri-implantitis (group A), non-diabetic individuals wit

166 (group B), and individuals with and without peri-implantitis (group C) were included.

167 ed into healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis groups.

168 Implants with peri-implantitis harbored significantly higher mean leve

169 At the present time, peri-implantitis has become a global burden that occurs

170 uring the past decade, and the prevalence of peri-implantitis has increased.

171 diseases, namely peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, have been extensively studied.

172 c oral infections, such as periodontitis and peri-implantitis, have complex etiology and pathogenesis

173 Implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis having 1- (T1) and 2-year (T2) follow-u

174 6-microm) laser in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis; however, its use may be promising.

175 is to evaluate the prevalence of mucositis, peri-implantitis, implant success, and survival in parti

176 and exosomes was significantly increased in peri-implantitis implants compared to healthy implants (

177 cts with healthy, peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis implants.

178 The material included 382 implants with peri-implantitis in 150 patients.

179 P patients, mucositis was present in 56% and peri-implantitis in 26% of the implants.

180 significantly downregulated in patients with peri-implantitis in comparison with peri-implant mucosit

181 emical parameters in a model of experimental peri-implantitis in dogs, followed by open flap debridem

182 /=2 PIMT/year seems to be crucial to prevent peri-implantitis in healthy patients.

183 ntal implants, which suggests corrosion, and peri-implantitis in humans.

184 ent study aims to evaluate the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants inserted in augmented maxil

185 Frequency of peri-implantitis in the survey was 17.8% at the particip

186 the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in their practices is up to 25% but is

187 ositive anaerobic rod has been identified in peri-implantitis, in endodontic infections, and in patie

188 The prevalence of peri-implantitis increased from 3.2% to 9.7% between 5 a

189 Peri-implantitis is a challenging condition to manage an

190 Peri-implantitis is a complex polymicrobial biofilm-indu

191 Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding but estimates of

192 Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition that can l

193 Peri-implantitis is associated with younger ages and dia

194 Prevalence of peri-implantitis is directly proportional to the time of

195 uvant antibiotic therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis is not well understood.

196 knowledge, a standard protocol for treating peri-implantitis is not yet established.

197 Peri-implantitis is the leading cause for IR.

198 duction of these materials and their role in peri-implantitis is unknown.

199 Peri-implantitis is widely recognized as a major cause o

200 Differences in cellular composition of peri-implantitis lesions might also depend on the patien

201 methyladenosine [m6Am]) in periodontitis and peri-implantitis lesions, playing vital roles in the inn

202 ve abundance of Eubacterium was increased at peri-implantitis locations, and co-occurrence analysis r

203 Increasing preclinical data suggest that peri-implantitis microbiota not only triggers an inflamm

204 ere not detected continuously as part of the peri-implantitis microbiota.

205 ncluding surgical trauma, occlusal overload, peri-implantitis, microgap, biologic width, and implant

206 (n = 10), peri-implant mucositis (n = 8) and peri-implantitis (n = 6) sites using pyrosequencing of t

207 ial role of titanium dissolution products in peri-implantitis necessitate the consideration of materi

208 ntitis group compared with the group without peri-implantitis; no traces of titanium were observed in

209 of the implants and 48% of the patients, and peri-implantitis occurred in 16% of the implants and 26%

210 the implants and 52.2% of the subjects, and peri-implantitis occurred in 8.7% of the implants and 15

211 If peri-implantitis occurred, 11 treatment strategies (non-

212 In the presence of peri-implantitis, only bleeding on probing at the adjace

213 s substantially associated with frequency of peri-implantitis (OR = 0.13, P = 0.01).

214 with peri-implant mucositis (OR = 4.33) and peri-implantitis (OR = 9.00).

215 nificantly correlated with the occurrence of peri-implantitis (P <0.001).

216 ignificant differences between mucositis and peri-implantitis patients (p = 0.001).

217 Peri-implantitis patients with implant pocket depths (IP

218 7.92% in the total sample size and 54.38% in peri-implantitis patients.

219 randomized controlled trial was conducted in peri-implantitis patients.

220 ic review assesses microbiologic profiles of peri-implantitis, periodontitis, and healthy implants ba

221 the implant group was 26.1%, largely due to peri-implantitis (PI), compared to 9.1% in the PR group

222 pact of these surfaces on the development of peri-implantitis (PI).

223 into those diagnosed with (test) or without peri-implantitis (PIm) (control).

224 ition (HI), peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PIMP) by assessing respective diagnost

225 clinical questions: 1) whether patients with peri-implantitis (PP) present higher prevalence of any s

226 dies have implicated prostaglandin E2 in the peri-implantitis process, opening the possibility to man

227 -implant status after surgical treatment for peri-implantitis provides a framework for diagnosing the

228 The prevalence of peri-implantitis ranges between 15% and 20% after 10 y,

229 between 5 and 10 years of follow-up, and the peri-implantitis rate among implants was 12.9% after 10

230 ntly higher prevalence of moderate to severe peri-implantitis (RBL >=2 mm).

231 the effectiveness of a titanium brush in the peri-implantitis reconstructive treatment.

232 udy indicated using laser irradiation during peri-implantitis regenerative therapy may aid in better

233 HA reduced the relative abundance of peri-implantitis-related microorganisms, especially the

234 Peri-implantitis represents a disruption of the biocompa

235 Peri-implantitis represents a heterogeneous mixed infect

236 The use of HA in advanced stages of peri-implantitis resulted in a decrease in microbial alp

237 etiologic factors associated with retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) and potential treatment options h

238 Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a rapidly progressing periapic

239 Although retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is not a common sequela of dental

240 significantly higher values of sclerostin in peri-implantitis samples.

241 Patients with peri-implantitis showed statistically significantly bett

242 Peri-implantitis sites were also colonized by uncultivab

243 irochete levels were significantly higher at peri-implantitis sites when compared with levels at peri

244 was correlated with Prevotella intermedia in peri-implantitis sites, which suggests the association o

245 ermedius/nigrescens were often identified at peri-implantitis sites.

246 oorganisms were not found very frequently in peri-implantitis sites.

247 om plaque samples obtained from experimental peri-implantitis sites.

248 ficantly with probing depth and bone loss at peri-implantitis sites.

249 Postoperative complications were peri-implantitis (six cases) and osseointegration losses

250 after implant placement (T0) and the day of peri-implantitis surgical treatment (T1).

251 tients with and without type 2 diabetes with peri-implantitis than systemically healthy individuals w

252 ial was performed in patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis that exhibited contained defects.

253 Patients with peri-implantitis that were treated with an intensive tre

254 ch procedure RESULTS: Following experimental peri-implantitis, the dynamics of renal parameters and b

255 eatment methods were influential in treating peri-implantitis, the laser group (MD+Er,Cr:YSGG) yielde

256 After regenerative treatment for peri-implantitis, the peri-implant condition was classif

257 in was proposed for use in periodontitis and peri-implantitis therapy due to its bone-supportive effe

258 The effectiveness of the peri-implantitis therapy was impaired by severe periodon

259 months of follow-up in >/= 10 patients with peri-implantitis treated with lasers were included.

260 nin as a promising drug in periodontitis and peri-implantitis treatment.

261 t consideration in the clinical selection of peri-implantitis treatments and a necessary criterion fo

262 Peri-implantitis treatments are mainly based on protocol

263 icles evaluated the microbiologic profile of peri-implantitis versus healthy implants or periodontiti

264 lants, respectively, while the prevalence of peri-implantitis was 10.1% at the patient level and 5.4%

265 The incidence of peri-implantitis was 8%, while the incidence of RPI was

266 Risk of peri-implantitis was assumed to be affected by SIT and t

267 Peri-implantitis was defined as presence of pocket depth

268 Peri-implantitis was defined as radiographic bone loss o

269 Peri-implantitis was defined as radiographic bone loss o

270 Peri-implantitis was defined based on the consensus repo

271 83 patients were enrolled: in MetS subjects, peri-implantitis was detected in 36.9% (n = 31) of impla

272 lant mucositis and preventing development of peri-implantitis was either provided or not.

273 her prevalence (48.8%) of moderate to severe peri-implantitis was identified in CVD compared with con

274 At the LM level, the inflammatory lesion of peri-implantitis was in most cases a mixture of subacute

275 ere connected to prostheses and experimental peri-implantitis was induced by ceasing scaling procedur

276 e full documentation in which no evidence of peri-implantitis was not indicated.

277 5% confidence interval [CI]: 1.003-4.63) for peri-implantitis was observed in implants supporting rem

278 t, the survival rate of implants treated for peri-implantitis was primarily influenced by the amount

279 Furthermore, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be lower at both the impla

280 Peri-implantitis was the main reason for IR (64.5%).

281 icipants and 30.7% of implants, and those of peri-implantitis were 18.8% of participants and 9.6% of

282 The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis were 82.1% and 41.4% at the subject lev

283 animal studies applying lasers for treating peri-implantitis were also included.

284 dontitis, healthy implants, or implants with peri-implantitis were colonized by periodontal microorga

285 Additionally, the risks for peri-implantitis were evaluated from the perspective of

286 tis comprising 164 screw-typed implants with peri-implantitis were included.

287 and a total of 164 screw-typed implants with peri-implantitis were included.

288 Putative pathogens associated with peri-implantitis were present at a moderate relative abu

289 Criteria for successful treatment of peri-implantitis were proposed.

290 ents who underwent non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were randomly divided into two groups.

291 Individuals with peri-implantitis were twice as likely to report a proble

292 Overall, 11.9% of the participants had peri-implantitis, whereas 68.9% had peri-implant mucosit

293 curred in the early post-diagnosis period of peri-implantitis, which could be affected by the restora

294 Twenty-four patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis with a radiographic infrabony defect we

295 the first bone-to-implant contact, extensive peri-implantitis with advanced bone resorption, and exte

296 surgical outcomes of resective treatment for peri-implantitis with and without implant surface modifi

297 t 45 days on the microbiome of implants with peri-implantitis with at least 1 year of loading.

298 QoL was impaired by the presence of peri-implantitis with high level of concern and low leve

299 d GAgP are more susceptible to mucositis and peri-implantitis, with lower implant survival and succes

300 betes and peri-implantitis and patients with peri-implantitis without diabetes.