Despite many discoveries over the past 20 years regarding the etio-pathogenesis of periodontal and peri-implant diseases, as well as significant advances in our understanding of microbial biofilms, the incidence of these pathologies still continues to rise. This review presents a general overview of the main protagonists and phenomena involved in oral health and disease. A special emphasis on the role of certain keystone pathogens in periodontitis and peri-implantitis is underlined. Their capacity to bring a dysregulation of the homeostasis with their host and the microbial biofilm lifestyle are also discussed. Finally, the current treatment principles of periodontitis and peri-implantitis are presented and their limits exposed. This leads to realize that new strategies must be developed and studied to overcome the shortcomings of existing approaches.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of three mechanical procedures for surgically treating peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: In a randomized, prospective, parallel-group study, 47 patients with peri-implantitis were treated with (a) plastic curettes (n = 15 patients, 25 implants), (b) an air-abrasive device (Perio-Flow^®, n = 16 patients,22 implants), or (c) a titanium brush (Ti-Brush^®, n = 16 patients, 23 implants). Patients were assessed for the following measures at three timepoints (baseline, and three and six months after surgery): plaque index, bleeding on probing, gingival index, probing pocket depth (PPD), relative attachment level, and bone loss. Treatment outcome was considered successful when the implant was still present with PPD ≤ 5 mm, no bleeding on probing, and no further mean bone loss ≥ 0.5 mm. Results: A greater reduction of gingival index and PPD was observed in the titanium brush group than in the other groups at six months (P < 0.001). Relative attachment level decreased from baseline in each group at three months but was more marked in the titanium brush group (P < 0.001). At six months, there was less bone loss in the titanium brush group than in the plastic curette group (P < 0.001; linear mixed model and Kruskal–Wallis). A successful outcome was observed in 22% of implants in the plastic curette group, 27% in the Perio-Flow^® group, and 33% in the Ti-Brush^® group. Conclusions: The titanium brush and glycine air-polishing device were more effective than the other methods, but treatment success remained low. Combining mechanical procedures with antimicrobials and/or antibiotics might be a more effective strategy and warrants careful investigation.

Objective: To compare the efficacy of four commonly used clinical procedures in removing Streptococcus gordonii biofilms from titanium disks, and the recolonization of the treated surfaces. Background: Successful peri-implantitis treatment depends on the removal of the dental biofilm. Biofilm that forms after implant debridement may threaten the success of the treatment and the long-term stability of the implants. Methods: S. gordonii biofilms were grown on titanium disks for 48 h and removed using a plastic curette, air-abrasive device (Perio-Flow®), titanium brush (TiBrush®), or implantoplasty. The remaining biofilm and the recolonization of the treated disks were observed using scanning electron microscopy and quantified after staining with crystal violet. Surface roughness (Ra and Rz) was measured using a profilometer. Results: S. gordonii biofilm biomass was reduced after treatment with Perio-Flow®, TiBrush®, and implantoplasty (all p < 0.05), but not plastic curette (p > 0.05), compared to the control group. Recolonization of S. gordonii after treatment was lowest after Perio-Flow®, TiBrush®, and implantoplasty (all p < 0.05 vs. control), but there was no difference between the plastic curette and the control group (p > 0.05). Ra and Rz values ranged from 1–6 µm to 1–2 µm and did not differ statistically between the control, plastic curette, Perio-Flow, and TiBrush groups. However, the implantoplasty group showed a Ra value below 1 µm (p < 0.01, ANOVA, Tukey). Conclusions: Perio-Flow^®, TiBrush^®, and implantoplasty were more effective than the plastic curette at removing the S. gordonii biofilm and preventing recolonization. These results should influence the surgical management of peri-implantitis.

Background: This study assessed the effects of weekly vitamin D (VD) supplementation on clinical and biological parameters after scaling and root planning (SRP) in the treatment of periodontitis and served to validate the VD dosage regimen. Methods: It was a monocentric, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with 6 months follow-up. Healthy Caucasian periodontitis patients presenting serum 25(OH) vitamin D3 below 30 ng/mL were randomly allocated to test group (SRP + VD 25,000 international units (IU)/week) or the control group (SRP + placebo). Results: A total of 59 patients were screened, 27 were included and 26 completed 3 months (M) and 21 completed 6M control. Test (n = 13) and control groups (n = 14) had similar 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels at baseline (17.6 ± 7.4 vs. 14.4 ± 5.2, respectively). After one month, there was a significant difference between groups (32.9 ± 5.2 vs. 16.1 ± 4.7), also seen at M3 and M6 (t-test, p < 0.001). Periodontal treatment was successful in both groups, since it resulted in a reduction of all measured clinical parameters at M3 and M6 (probing pocket depth (PPD), full mouth bleeding and plaque). However, the reduction in PPD was greater in the test group. Conclusions: In this short-term pilot study, no significant differences were observed between two groups. However, supplementation with VD tended to improve the treatment of periodontitis in patients with initial 25(OH) vitamin D3 < 30 ng/mL and proved safe and efficacious. NCT03162406.

Background and Objectives: Promoting resolution of inflammation using new classes of lipids mediators has been proposed for the management of inflammatory disease. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits of the use of omega‐3 fatty acids as an adjuvant in the nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis.Material and Methods: The data search was conducted into three main databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The search equation was built around the PICO framework in which the population was constituted by human adults suffering from chronic periodontitis that had to be treated with conventional SRP with the adjunction of omega‐3 fatty acids (I) or without the adjunction of omega‐3 fatty acids (C), with, as a first outcome the probing pocket depth reduction (PPD) and as a second outcome the clinical attachment loss reduction (CAL). Risk of bias within studies was evaluated for each included study using the Cochrane collaboration tool for randomized studies (RoB Tool). A meta‐analysis was performed using REVMAN 5.3.Results: After a global search, 117 studies were selected but only seven of them were eligible for the systematic review and meta‐analysis. Six out of seven studies showed a significantly better PPD reduction in the omega‐3 fatty acids group compared to the control group and five out of seven studies showed a significantly better CAL reduction in the omega‐3 fatty acids group compared to the control group. The meta‐analysis showed a statistically significant difference for PPD reduction (SMD: −0.78 [95% CI: −1.02, −0.54, p < .0001]) and CAL reduction (SMD: −0.80 [95% CI: −1.04, −0.56, p < .0001]) in favor of the test group.Conclusion: After scaling and root planning, PPD reduction and CAL reduction were observed in both control and test groups, but with statistically significant better values for the omega‐3 fatty acids group. Patients suffering from periodontitis could benefit from the use of omega‐3 fatty acids to increase the effectiveness of a nonsurgical treatment.