Background: The aim of this study is to characterize and evaluate the host response caused by three different models of experimental periodontitis in mice.Methods: C57BL/6 wild‐type female mice were distributed into six experimental groups and sacrificed at 7, 15, and 30 days after the induction of periodontal disease: 1) group C: no treatment control group; 2) group L: periodontal disease induced by ligature; 3) group G‐Pg: oral gavage with Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg); 4) group G‐PgFn: oral gavage with Fusobacterium nucleatum + Pg; 5) group I‐Pg: heat‐killed Pg injected into the palatal mucosa between the molars; and 6) group I‐V: phosphate‐buffered saline injected into the palatal mucosa. The samples were used to analyze the immune‐inflammatory process in the gingival tissue via descriptive histologic and real‐time polymerase chain reaction analyses. The alveolar bone loss was evaluated using microcomputed tomography. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal‐Wallis test, followed by a post hoc Dunn test and analysis of variance, followed by a Tukey test using a 5% significance level.Results: Only the ligature model displayed significant alveolar bone loss in the initial period (7 days), which was maintained with time. The group injected with heat‐killed Pg displayed significant alveolar bone loss starting from day 15, which continued to progress with time (P <0.05). A significant increase (P <0.05) in the gene expression of proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin‐6 and ‐1β) and proteins involved in osteoclastogenesis (receptor activator of nuclear factor‐κB ligand and osteoprotegerin) was observed in the ligature group on day 7.Conclusion: The ligature and injection of heat‐killed Pg models were the most representative of periodontal disease in humans, whereas the oral gavage models were not effective at inducing the disease under the experimental conditions.

Peri‐implantitis is an inflammatory disease of hard and soft tissues around osseointegrated implants, followed by a progressive damage of alveolar bone. Oral microorganisms can adhere to all types of surfaces by the production of multiple adhesive factors. Inherent properties of materials will influence not only the number of microorganisms, but also their profile and adhesion force onto the material surface. In this perspective, strategies to reduce the adhesion of pathogenic microorganisms on dental implants and their components should be investigated in modern rehabilitation concepts in implant dentistry. To date, several metallic nanoparticle films have been developed to reduce the growth of pathogenic bacteria. However, the main drawback in these approaches is the potential toxicity and accumulative effect of the metals over time. In view of biological issues and in attempt to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis, biomaterials as carriers of antimicrobial substances have attracted special attention for application as coatings on dental implant devices. This review will focus on biomaterial‐based possibilities to prevent and/or treat peri‐implantitis by describing concepts and dental implant components suitable for engagement in preventing and treating this disease. Additionally, we raise important criteria referring to the geometric parameters of dental implants and their components, which can directly affect peri‐implant tissue conditions. Finally, we overview currently available biomaterial systems that can be used in the field of oral implantology.