Objectives: The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.Materials and methods: Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.Results: Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.Conclusion: Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

In fully edentulous patients, the support of a lower dental prosthesis by two implants could improve the chewing ability, retention, and stability of the prosthesis. Despite high success rates of dental implants, complications, such as peri-implantitis, do occur. The latter is a consequence of crestal bone loss and might be related to the implant surface and peri-implant soft tissue thickness. The aim of this paper is to describe the effect of implant surface roughness and soft tissue thickness on crestal bone remodeling, peri-implant health, and patient-centered outcomes. The mandibular overdenture supported by two implants is used as a split-mouth model to scrutinize these aims. The first study compared implants placed equicrestal to implants placed biologically (i.e., dependent on site-specific soft tissue thickness). The second clinical trial compared implants with a minimally to a moderately rough implant neck. Both studies reported an improvement in oral health-related quality of life and a stable peri-implant health after three years follow-up. Only equicrestal implant placement yielded significantly higher implant surface exposure, due to the establishment of the biologic width. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that an implant supported mandibular overdenture significantly improves the quality of life, with limited biologic complications and high survival rates of the implants.

Despite high success rates of dental implants, surface exposure may occur as a consequence of biologic width establishment associated with surgery. This prospective split-mouth study evaluated the effect of early implant surface exposure caused by initial bone remodeling on long-term peri-implant bone stability and peri-implant health. Additionally, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) was assessed by means of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Twenty-six patients received two non-splinted implants supporting an overdenture in the mandible by means of locators. One implant was installed equicrestally (control) and the second one was installed subcrestally, taking at least 3 mm soft tissue thickness into account (test). During initial bone remodeling (up to 6 months postoperatively), equicrestal placement yielded 0.68 mm additional surface exposure compared to subcrestal placement (p < 0.001). Afterwards, bone level and peri-implant health were comparable in both treatment conditions and stable up to 5 years. The implant overdenture improved OHRQoL (p < 0.01) and remained unchanged thereafter (p = 0.51). In conclusion, adapting the vertical position of the implant concerning the soft tissue thickness prevents early implant surface exposure caused by initial bone remodeling, but in a well-maintained population, this has no impact on long-term prognosis. The treatment of edentulousness with an implant mandibular overdenture improves OHRQoL.