This review aimed to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them into new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). For methodological development, the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy was used for the focus question construction: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search key terms, combined with Boolean markers, were (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to the period 1998–2024 and the English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and included in the GF-MoR complexes, which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) health, (2) gingivitis, (3) peri-implant mucositis, (4) periodontitis, (5) peri-implantitis, and (6) necrotizing and molar–incisor (M-O) pattern periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found to be associated with a particular disease. A total of 381 articles were found: 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k = 0.92). Of these articles, nine were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k = 0.98). Most of the studies reported results for the health condition, periodontitis, and peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it became essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group could also be present in others, such as those observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red triangle). The second most observed bacteria were grouped in GF-MoR’s blue triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., which were present in five of the six groups. The third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey polygon (GF-MoR’s grey polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria to periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s health group had 58 species; GF-MoR’s gingivitis group presented 16 bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of necrotizing diseases and molar–incisor (M-I) pattern periodontitis, with seven bacteria. After observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all of them were found to be gram-negative. Groups 4 and 5 (periodontitis and peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes were presented, gathering bacteria data according to the condition found and including more bacteria than in Socransky’s complexes. Based on this understanding, this study could drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborations to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of bacterial clusters.

Objective: The aim of this review was to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them in new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). Methods: The focus question was developed based on the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search keyterms, combined with Boolean markers, were: (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to 1998–2024 and English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and were included in the GF-MoR complexes which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) Health, (2) Gingivitis, (3) Peri-implant mucositis, (4) Periodontitis, (5) Peri-implantitis, and (6) Necrotizing and Molar-Incisor (M-O) pattern Periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found associated with a particular disease. Results: A total of 381 articles were found; 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k=0.92); 9 articles were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k=0.98). Most of the studies reported results for Health condition, Periodontitis, and Peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it is essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group can also be present in other one or others, such as observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red Triangle); the second most observed bacteria were grouped at GF-MoR’s blue Triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., present in 5 of the six groups; and the third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey Polygon (GF-MoR’s grey Polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria for periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s Health had 58 species; GF-MoR’s Gingivitis presented 16 bacteria; the GF-MoR’s Peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s Periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s Peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of Necrotizing diseases and Molar-Incisor (M-I) pattern Periodontitis, with seven bacteria. Observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all were gram-negative; Groups 4 and 5 (Periodontitis and Peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. Conclusion: For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes are presented, gathering the bacteria according to the condition found and including more bacteria than Socransky’s complexes. On this understanding, this study can drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborating to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of the bacterial clusters correlated to periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions.

The goal of this systematic review was to verify the marginal bone loss (MBL) and other clinical parameters comparing external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) implants when they were evaluated within the same study. The focused question was, “For patients (P) treated with external connection (I) or Morse taper (C) dental implants, were there differences in the marginal bone crest maintenance after at least three months in occlusal function (O)”? As for the inclusion criteria that were considered, they included clinical studies in English that compared the MBL in implants with EH and MT, with follow-up of at least three months, that were published between 2011 and 2022; as for the exclusion criteria, they included publications investigating only one type of connection that analyzed other variables and did not report results for the MBL, reports based on questionnaires, interviews, and case reports/series, systematic reviews, or studies involving patients with a significant health problem (ASA Physical Status 3 and above). The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were screened, and all of the data obtained were registered in a spreadsheet (Excel^®). The Jadad scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. A total of 110 articles were initially identified; 11 were considered for full-text reading. Then, six articles (four RCTs and two prospective studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. A total of 185 patients (mean age of 59.71) were observed, and the follow-up ranged from 3 months to 36 months. A total of 541 implants were registered (267 EH and 274 MT). The survival rate ranged between 96% and 100% (the average was 97.82%). The MBL was compared among all periods studied; therefore, the common assessment period was the 12-month follow-up, presenting greater MBL for EH than for MT (p < 0.001). A mean MBL of 0.60 mm (95% CI 0.43–0.78) was found after the same period. BoP was reported in 5 studies and plaque index was reported in 4 (2 with more than 30%). Deep PD was observed in three studies. High heterogeneity was observed (I₂ = 85.06%). Thus, within the limitation of this review, it was possible to conclude that there is higher bone loss in EH than in MT implants when evaluating and comparing this variable within the same study. However, the results must be carefully interpreted because of this review’s limited number of clinical studies, the short assessment period, and the high heterogeneity found.

Background and Objectives: The goal of this study was to introduce a novel device, the iMPACT implant planer, designed to machine (create a complete smooth surface) contaminated implant surfaces intraorally, promoting peri-implant tissue healing and possible re-osseointegration, and the new Quadrant protocol, evaluating them in vitro and clinically. The null hypothesis was that there would be no improvement in the clinical parameters for the implants with peri-implantitis (PI) treated with the new protocol and tool. Materials and Methods: The Quadrant protocol was used in conjunction with the iMPACT tool, which primarily functions to remove biofilm and microbial contaminants from the exposed implant surface, while simultaneously preparing the surface through standardized implantoplasty, thereby enhancing the potential for re-osseointegration. An in vitro analysis was developed, and three medium/long-term cases were presented, detailing the procedures and outcomes. Results: The in vitro assessment showed smooth surfaces after treatment. Different areas presented minimal particles (<1 μm) on the implant surface, with a high content of titanium (Ti) and tungsten (W). In case 1, severe and advanced peri-implantitis around implants #46 and #47 was found. A combination of resective (Quadrant + iMPACT) and regenerative surgery was used for treatment, along with a buccal single flap (BSF). Significant clinical and radiographic improvements were observed at 14 and 43 months postoperatively, including vertical bone gain with re-osseointegration and stable probing depths (PDs). In the second case, a severe PI and prosthesis instability were observed. Resective (Quadrant + iMPACT) and regenerative procedures were applied. At 3 and 12 months postoperatively, clinical and radiographic evaluations demonstrated significant improvements with re-osseointegration, including PDs reduced to 0–1 mm and a vertical bone gain of approximately 6.5 mm. In case 3, mandibular implants from 42 to 47 exhibited inflammation, suppuration, and moderate-to-severe bone loss. Just resective surgery (Quadrant + iMPACT), without grafting, was performed. At 6- and 12-month follow-ups, clinical and radiographic assessments showed the resolution of inflammation, stable bone levels, and healthy peri-implant gingiva. Conclusions: Favorable outcomes were achieved using the iMPACT and Quadrant protocols in the three clinical cases, resulting in re-osseointegration when combined with regenerative procedures. The favorable medium/long-term outcomes achieved, despite the patient’s complex medical history and, at times, inconsistent oral hygiene, underscore the potential efficacy of such interventions.

Objectives: This cross-sectional observational and epidemiological study aimed to collect data on the oral health conditions of the prison population in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Methods: The Penitentiary Moniz Sodré, part of the Penitentiary Complex of Bangu, houses 1385 male inmates of different nationalities. They were divided into groups according to age: Group 1, prisoners aged 18 to 27 years; Group 2, from 28 to 37 years; Group 3, from 38 to 47 years; and Group 4, from 48 and older. A survey was performed, and the Decayed, Missing, Filled Teeth (DMFT) index was applied. A statistical analysis was conducted, considering a p-value of less than 0.05 as significant. Then, multiple linear regression was implemented to verify correlations among the studied parameters, to adjust for confounders, and to examine predictors of DMFT scores. Results: The average age was 26.95 ± 6.72 years, with 57.7% smokers (n = 720) and 7.7% (n = 96) former smokers. Lung diseases were also relatively common (20.9%). The most frequently reported oral issue was bleeding on probing (37.7%, n = 470), with 100% presenting visible dental plaque and 71.3% dental calculus. Oral hygiene habits showed moderate adherence, with 20.1% brushing their teeth at least once daily and 20.3% flossing; however, only 10.3% reported using fluoride mouthwash. The average DMFT score progressively increased across age groups: Group 1 (age: 18–27): 6.89; Group 2 (age: 28–37): 10.87; Group 3 (age: 38–47): 16; and Group 4 (age ≥ 48): 22.5 (p < 0.0001). Decayed (D) teeth scores showed a moderate increase: Group 1: 2.94 ± 2.74; Group 2: 3.38 ± 2.65; Group 3: 3.11 ± 2.56; Group 4: 3.75 ± 3.1 (p = 0.0029). Missing (M) teeth scores demonstrated a significant increase with age, from 2.74 (±2.84) in group 1 to 18.12 (±7.71) in group 4 (p < 0.0001), whereas Filled (F) teeth scores were highest in group 3 (mean 1.92 ± 4.13), followed by a decline in the oldest group (mean 0.62 ± 1.18) (p < 0.0001). These findings indicate a strong age-related increase in the total DMFT score, primarily driven by the number of missing teeth. Conclusions: High levels of caries and its sequelae exist, demonstrating a correlation with age, as well as a low level of previous periodontal treatment or intervention. As the treatments performed did not manage to reduce the incidence of caries and periodontal diseases, a high number of extractions were observed in patients in confinement.