This in vitro study evaluated the effects of nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAp) toothpastes on remineralization of bovine enamel and dentine subsurface lesions. Specimens were demineralized, randomly divided into five groups, and exposed to an aqueous remineralizing solution for two and five weeks (37 °C). Brushing procedures were performed with the respective toothpaste/storage solution slurry twice daily (2 × 5 s; total contact time of the slurries 2 × 120s/d): storage in remineralizing solution only (0); additional brushing with B (20 wt% zinc carbonate nano-hydroxyapatite, ZnCO(3)/n-HAp); BS (24 wt% ZnCO(3)/n-HAp); E (0.14 wt% amine fluoride); or A (7 wt% pure n-HAp). Differences in mineral loss (ΔΔZ) before and after storage/treatment were microradiographically evaluated. Dentine groups 0, B, BS, and A showed significantly higher ΔΔZ values compared to E (p < 0.05; ANOVA). Enamel ΔΔZ values of group A were significantly higher compared to group E (p < 0.05), whilst no significant differences of these groups could be observed compared to 0, B, and BS (p > 0.05). With the in vitro conditions chosen, toothpastes containing n-HAp revealed higher remineralizing effects compared to amine fluoride toothpastes with bovine dentine, and comparable trends were obtained for enamel.

Aim: The purpose of this review is to estimate the prevalence of peri-implantitis, as well as to determine possible risk factors associated with its development in patients treated with oral implants.Background: Although implant therapy has been identified as a successful and predictable treatment for partially and fully edentulous patients, complications and failures can occur. Periimplantitis is considered a biologic complication that results in bone loss around implants and may lead to implant treatment failure.Results: A great variation has been observed in the literature regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis according to the diagnostic criteria used to define peri-implantitis. The prevalence ranges from 4.7 to 43% at implant level, and from 8.9 to. ≥56% at patient level. Many risk factors that may lead to the establishment and progression of peri-implantitis have been suggested. There is strong evidence that presence and history of periodontitis are potential risk factors for peri-implantitis. Cigarette smoking has not yet been conclusively established as a risk factor for peri-implantitis, although extra care should be taken with dental implant in smokers. Other risk factors, such as diabetes, genetic traits, implant surface roughness and presence of keratinized mucosa still require further investigation.Conclusion: Peri-implantitis is not an uncommon complication following implant therapy. A higher prevalence of peri-implantitis has been identified for patients with presence or history of periodontal disease and for smokers. Until now, a true risk factor for peri-implantitis has not been established. Supportive maintenance program is essential for the long-term success of treatments with oral implants.Clinical significance: The knowledge of the real impact of peri-implantitis on the outcome of treatments with oral implants as well as the identification of risk factors associated to this inflammatory condition are essential for the development of supportive maintenance programs and the establishment of prevention protocols.How to cite this article: Marcantonio C, Nicoli LG, Junior EM, Zandim-Barcelos DL. Prevalence and Possible Risk Factors of Peri-implantitis: A Concept Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(9):750-757.

Peri-implantitis is currently a topic of major interest in implantology. Considered one of the main reasons of late implant failure, there is an emerged concern whether implant characteristics could trigger inflammatory lesion and loss of supporting bone. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an evidence based overview on the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. A literature review was conducted addressing the following topics: implant surface topography; implant location; occlusal overload; time in function; prosthesis-associated factors (rehabilitation extension, excess of cement and implant-abutment connection); and metal particle release. Although existing data suggests that some implant-based factors may increase the risk of peri-implantitis, the evidence is still limited to consider them a true risk factor for peri-implantitis. In conclusion, further evidences are required to a better understanding of the influence of implant-based factors in the occurrence of peri-implantitis. Large population-based studies including concomitant analyses of implant- and patient-based factors are required to provide strong evidence of a possible association with peri-implantitis in a higher probability. The identification of these factors is essential for the establishment of strategies to prevent peri-implantitis.

Dentin hypersensitivity is a common painful condition observed in clinics. Dietary habits have been much associated with its development and persistence during and following periodontal treatment. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of vinegars on the removal of smear layer and exposure of dentinal tubules. Extracted human teeth were submitted to manual scaling with Gracey curettes in order to remove the cementum as well as to form a smear layer. Dentin samples with 3 mm² were obtained and distributed into six experimental groups: one control and five types of vinegars (alcohol, apple, rice, white wine and balsamic). Each group included two methods of vinegar application: topical and friction. After routine preparation for SEM analysis, photomicrographs were assessed by a calibrated and blind examiner using an appropriate index system. Kruskal-Wallis test indicated a significant influence of vinegars on smear layer removal. There was a statistically significant difference between groups treated with apple, white and rice vinegars and the control group (p < 0.05). Nevertheless, Mann-Whitney test indicated that removal of smear layer did not vary with the method of application (topical versus friction) for any of the tested substances. We can conclude that the contact of vinegar may remove smear layer and expose dentinal tubules, regardless of the type of application. However, balsamic vinegar was associated with less removal of smear layer after both methods of application.