This study once more underlines that patients who do not regularly attend check-ups after receiving their implant-supported restoration have a very high risk of peri-implant diseases in general and specifically peri-implantitis; based on this data, at least two check-up visits per year are recommended.

The fight for periodontally compromised teeth and therefore retaining these teeth usually also pays off for patients from a financial perspective and is usually cheaper than extraction and subsequent implantation.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at significantly higher risk of periodontitis and this risk increases further for patients with particularly active rheumatoid arthritis.

Interdental cleaning with dental floss or interdental brushes significantly reduces interdental plaque build-up and even tends to lead to a reduced rate of tooth loss in the long term.

Explore the complexities of dental implant care: This scientifically backed article summarises the critical aspects of diagnosis, oral hygiene, and expert strategies for the effective management of both, mucositis and peri-implantitis.

A non-surgical periodontal treatment can reduce the long-term blood glucose level (HbA1c) in type 2 diabetics by 0.3% and this effect persisted even after six months following treatment.

Untreated periodontal disease in parents can negatively influence the development of their children’s oral microbiome and promote the development of a dysbiotic oral microbiome.

The shape of an implant crown has a significant influence on how well it can be kept clean using home oral hygiene, and concave crown shapes appear to be easier to clean; it also seems that the underside of an implant crown in the molar area is easiest to access with dental floss.

Factors that can be categorised as a poor lifestyle, and primarily also a combination thereof, significantly increased the number of residual pocket probing depths with ≥ 6 mm and significantly reduced the likelihood of attaining the desired treatment outcome in periodontitis patients following non-surgical periodontal treatment (treatment step 1 and 2).

Commonly used definitions for successful periodontal treatment are extremely difficult to achieve, but are nevertheless associated with a lower rate of tooth loss; however, the tooth loss rate in patients who regularly attend supportive periodontal treatment sessions is generally very low.

Biofilm accumulation is the main aetiological factor in the development of peri-implant diseases; plaque control and supportive implant therapy are therefore crucial in preventing peri-implant diseases.

In old age, tooth loss leads to significantly reduced social participation in society, while maintaining a minimum of 20 teeth has the opposite effect and leads to a significant improvement and therefore more frequent social participation.

In this study, non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis was only successful in 25% of cases and was adversely affected by a medical history involving periodontitis and smoking, inadequate oral hygiene and a wide implant diameter.

The prevention of peri-implant diseases is the best treatment and the peri-implant soft tissue can play a decisive role here; for this reason, the team should discuss if there is a need for treatment in patients with a lack of keratinised mucosa (i.e. < 2 mm width of keratinised mucosa).

A very high percentage of patients had a positive experience of implant treatment and most patients were very happy with the result; however, frequent points of criticism were the treatment costs and the cleansing ability.

Women who exercise regularly showed a significantly reduced risk of periodontitis and a significantly reduced severity of periodontitis.

Rehabilitation and replacement of missing teeth lead to a significant improvement in quality of life relating to oral health and also tend to improve general health.

A questionnaire-based survey showed that periodontitis significantly increases the risk of an impaired sense of taste and smell.

Smoking and increased probing depths at a young age (i.e. at an age of < 20 years) are significant risk factors for the early onset of periodontitis (i.e. at an age of < 30 years).

Automatic toothbrushing could have future potential, but still requires further technical developments to improve existing shortcomings with regard to customizsation for different jaw sizes and tooth positions, interdental spaces and choice of optimal brushing time.

Even when told to brush their teeth as well as possible, the quality of tooth brushing among young adults is poor; the main weaknesses are cleaning palatal/lingual surfaces and overall brushing technique.

Optimal diabetes control, regular supportive implant therapy and augmentation of peri-implant soft tissue deficits have proven to be crucial features in primary prevention of peri-implant diseases.

Additional measures locally applied or taken systemically by the patient (e.g. antiseptics in the form of mouth-rinse solutions or probiotics) could have an additional positive effect in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

Chemical additives for cleaning the implant surface as part of non-surgical peri-implantitis therapy may make sense, but there is a shortage of well-conducted studies with a sufficient number of patients and a long-enough follow-up period to really be able to recommend a specific method and/or a specific product.

Due to a continuing lack of well-conducted clinical studies, it is still not possible, based on the evidence, to give a clear treatment guideline for mechanical cleaning as part of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment.

Treating gingivitis is not only the most effective option for preventing the occurrence of periodontitis, but also leads to a reduction in systemic inflammatory markers, whilst also improving the patient’s quality of life in terms of oral health.

As early as 2016 (Monsarrat et al. 2016), a study outlined a link between periodontitis and 57(!) systemic diseases, the most well-known of these being diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases. Time and again, these links prompt a discussion about the need for positive cooperation between dentists and doctors in order to improve early diagnosis of specific systemic diseases.

Experiencing cervical tooth sensitivity following periodontal therapy? Here’s what you can do about it! Non-surgical periodontal therapy can unfortunately entail a number of disadvantages, which are the sources of some complaints from our patients time and again. For example, they complain about the longer appearance of their teeth and/or about increased sensitivity of the exposed tooth cervix. Studies have shown that around 60 to 90% of our patients suffer from cervical tooth sensitivity in the period immediately following non-surgical periodontal therapy and that from a third up to a quarter of patients still suffer from cervical tooth sensitivity after 4 to 8 weeks (Lin et al. 2012).

The optimal treatment result for periodontitis patients is for them to keep their own teeth in good condition for as long as possible. However, there are both patients and teeth with certain characteristics that make it significantly harder to actually achieve this objective!

Up to what point can an implant and its surrounding tissue be described as healthy? And at what point are caution and appropriate treatment required because the diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis already applies?

For the first time, the new classification scheme for periodontal diseases, which was presented in June 2018, contains a definition of the concept of clinical periodontal health (Lang & Bartold, 2018).

The article ‘How to correctly diagnose peri-implant mucositis’ discussed the criteria for peri-implant health and peri-implant mucositis. But how can you tell that the patient’s condition has already reached an advanced stage – in other words, how can I correctly diagnose peri-implantitis?

It is a situation we are all too familiar with: following the active phase of treatment, nearly all the patient’s teeth are now unaffected by increased pocket probing depths. However, there are still 1 or 2 places where the treatment goal has unfortunately not been achieved.

A very common question after the active phase of periodontal therapy is how high the patient’s risk is of re-developing periodontal problems.

The previous report discussed a question that patients frequently ask: ‘will periodontal treatment really make me feel better?’ And, based on the literature, this question should be answered with a resounding ‘yes!’ However, personal well-being and oral-health-related quality of life are not the only issues – for many patients, financial considerations are also of primary concern, prompting the question: ‘does periodontal treatment really pay off?’

In collaboration with the German Society for Periodontology (DGParo), in October 2019 the German Society for Dental, Oral and Maxillary Medicine (DGZMK) published a new S3 guideline on the topic of ‘Subgingival instrumentation’, which is now valid for five years. This new guideline primarily focuses on the following two main topics: