Periodontal Disease and Microbiological Aspects
The diagnosis, or history, of periodontal disease is the most researched factor associated with peri-implantitis. This is partially attributed to similarities in the subgingival microbiota between the diseased teeth and implants [
10•]. Submucosal presence of certain periodontal pathogens has been significantly associated with peri-implantitis, with an odds ratio of 15.1 [
11], but the results are still controversial [
12]. Current data suggests that peri-implantitis is associated with a specific microbiota resembling that of periodontal lesions, in addition to other microorganisms not commonly related to periodontitis [
13]. Nevertheless, it is well-accepted that peri-implantitis consistently presents with marked microbial diversity [
13,
14], and that deeper peri-implant pockets exhibit significant microbial alterations and higher levels of dysbiosis [
15].
Periodontal disease has been strongly associated with peri-implantitis [
5•,
16]. Active periodontitis at the adjacent teeth is further considered a predictor of future peri-implantitis [
9]. Periodontally compromised patients have twice the risk of developing peri-implantitis compared with healthy individuals [
10•]. Moreover, those with a history of generalised aggressive periodontitis are 5 times more prone to implant failure, and 14 times more susceptible to peri-implantitis, compared with healthy controls [
17]. Fortunately, successful treatment of periodontal disease prior to implant placement has been shown to lower the risk of peri-implantitis [
18], and is therefore considered an essential initial part of the overall treatment plan.
Lack of Maintenance Therapy
Supportive therapy has been shown to significantly lower the risk of peri-implant biological complications, and a minimum recall interval of 5–6 months has thus been recommended [
18,
19]. Maintenance programs should be tailored to the individual’s specific needs and susceptibility to both periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Factors used for risk assessment include the percentage of BOP, the prevalence of active residual pockets, oral hygiene level, smoking habits and the presence of systemic or genetic conditions [
20]. Individuals with high-risk profiles require three to four annual visits [
20,
21], and their attendance is detrimental for prevention and early detection of peri-implantitis [
22]. One out of five non-compliant patients is diagnosed with peri-implantitis within 5 years [
23]. On the other hand, compliance is associated with 86% fewer peri-implantitis cases. Unfortunately, those with greater needs have been known to be the least compliant. The extent and severity of periodontal disease, as well as the patient’s smoking habits, affect adherence to maintenance programs [
22]. Therefore, it is the clinicians’ duty to adequately inform their patients of the importance of regular supportive therapy for the prevention of peri-implantitis.
Smoking Including Cigarettes, Water pipes, Smokeless Tobacco, Vaping and Cannabis
The negative effects of smoking on periodontal health have long been well established. It impacts innate and adaptive immune responses, impairing the host’s defence mechanisms and its response to microbial challenges [
24,
25]. Cigarette smoking also affects wound healing, as it is therefore detrimental to periodontal treatment [
21,
26,
27]. Smoking further increases the oxidative stress and inflammatory burden with marked alterations in microbial flora [
28]. It significantly affects implants’ colonisation with periodontal pathogens such as
Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and
Fusobacterium nucleatum [
28]. Besides, cigarettes are not only harmful to smokers, but mere exposure to environmental smoke increases the risk of developing periodontal disease by 28% [
29].
Studies have repeatedly proven smoking as a risk factor for peri-implantitis [
9,
30,
31]. Smokers are almost twice more at risk of developing peri-implantitis compared with non-smokers [
5•]. Moreover, smoking is associated with increased severity of peri-implantitis lesions [
16], with a dose-dependant relationship between smoking and tissue destruction [
26,
32]. Nevertheless, smoking cessation has been shown to positively impact periodontal health, with favourable effects on both incidence and progression of the disease [
26,
33].
In addition to cigarettes commerciality, the popularity of non-cigarette tobacco products has been alarmingly rising. Water pipes, also known as shisha, hookah or narjilah, have become a popular way of smoking tobacco among adolescents and adults alike [
34,
35]. Their recreational use has become widely acceptable despite containing high levels of nicotine, and a multitude of carcinogens and heavy metals. In addition, water pipes emit a variety of pollutants generated by the charcoal used to heat the tobacco. They are smoked for hours in social settings, thus extending the amount of smoke inhalation and its side effects. Second-hand smoke inhalation should also be taken into account. The link between water pipe smoking and periodontal disease has already been established by several studies [
35,
36]. Furthermore, water pipe smokers have a significantly higher risk of periodontitis compared with cigarette smokers, but adverse effects were strongly associated with the duration and the quantity of daily use [
37]. However, studies have so far focused on periodontal conditions in general, and not on peri-implantitis in particular. But in analogy to cigarette smoking, water pipe smoking presents a possible risk factor for peri-implant disease.
Smokeless tobacco is yet another factor associated with periodontal disease, specially in the absence of adequate oral hygiene measures [
38]. It is most commonly used in India and Southeast Asia [
39]. The adverse effects of smokeless tobacco on both periodontal and peri-implant tissues are comparable with those of cigarette smoking [
40,
41]. Deeper probing depths and higher degrees of peri-implant bone loss were found in cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users compared with non-tobacco users [
41].
Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), or vaping, have lately become an extremely widespread trend among individuals of all ages. They are widely misconceived as harmless recreational products. Yet their increasing popularity, combined with the lack of evidence on long-term health effects, has become rather disquieting [
42]. Regardless of their nicotine content, e-cigarettes have been shown to increase oxidative/carbonyl stress and pro-inflammatory responses, with adverse effects on endothelial cells and fibroblasts, and concomitant dysregulation in periodontal repair [
43‐
45]. Clinical studies have associated vaping with periodontal attachment loss and marginal bone resorption [
44,
46]. A recent cross-sectional study had further demonstrated significantly deeper peri-implant probing depths and increased marginal bone loss in vaping patients compared with never smokers. However, this study did not account for past cigarette smoking as a confounding factor that could have influenced the results [
45]. Further research is required to shed the light on the extent and severity of peri-implant complications, as well as the impact of vaping on general health.
Among smokable illicit substances, cannabis is one of the most commonly used drugs worldwide [
47,
48•]. Following its recent legalisation in several countries, the plausibility of an association between cannabis and peri-implantitis should be evaluated. Different studies have already established higher prevalence and severity of periodontitis in cannabis users, irrespective of concomitant tobacco smoking [
48•,
49]. However, an animal study demonstrated bone loss on the periodontitis-affected teeth exposed to cannabis without significantly affecting the periodontally healthy teeth [
50]. Meaning that cannabis only seems to aggravate periodontitis-associated bone loss. Since periodontitis is more prevalent in adults [
51,
52], this could explain why clinical studies showed a higher impact of cannabis on older individuals compared with adolescents. However, the drug’s mechanism of action and its exact pathway to periodontal destruction is still unclear [
48•,
53]. Finally, despite studies supporting an association between cannabis use and periodontitis, the evidence is still lacking regarding peri-implantitis.
Systemic Conditions
The influence of certain systemic diseases on periodontal health has long been established [
54‐
56]. Due to its increasing prevalence, diabetes mellitus is one of the most thoroughly researched conditions in the literature. It affects 415 million adults worldwide, with 642 million projected in 2040 (The International Diabetes Federation; 2015). The disease affects insulin’s secretion, its function or both, causing disruption of glycaemic levels. This consequently results in a variety of neuropathological, retinal, microvascular and renal complications [
57].
Poor glycaemic control plays a pivotal role in the progression and severity of periodontitis [
58]. This association has been explained by several vascular and cellular responses, leading to enhanced tissue destruction and impaired healing response [
59]. Similar mechanisms are triggered in peri-implant tissues; resulting in a higher susceptibility to peri-implantitis in individuals suffering from hyperglycaemia [
56]. Poorly controlled diabetics are at 46% higher risk of developing peri-implantitis, with deeper peri-implant pockets and higher marginal bone loss, compared with their normoglycaemic controls [
55]. Interestingly, smokers and poorly controlled diabetics are considered at a similar risk for peri-implantitis. On the other hand, non-smokers with poor glycaemic control are 3.39 times at higher risk of developing peri-implantitis compared with normoglycaemic individuals [
56]. Therefore, hyperglycaemia, not diabetes per se [
60••], presents a significant risk factor for peri-implantitis.
Obesity is another highly prevalent condition with detrimental effects on periodontal health [
61,
62]. It is defined as abnormal or excessive body fat accumulation with debilitating effects on general health [
63]. This is a major medical problem associated with marked physiological changes, including diabetes mellitus and coronary heart disease [
64]. Obesity is also associated with a generalised and constant hyper-inflammatory state, causing an altered immune response and increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which adversely affect periodontal tissues and alveolar bone levels [
31,
65]. Clinical studies have established obesity as a risk factor for peri-implantitis [
62,
66,
67]. When compared with individuals with normal body weight, obese patients present with significantly higher percentages of BOP, deeper peri-implant probing depths and increased marginal bone loss [
66,
67]. The severity of peri-implant inflammation is significantly associated with the level of obesity [
62].
Despite their prevalence, few studies have examined the association between cardiovascular diseases and peri-implantitis. Most showed a significantly higher risk of peri-implantitis and additional bone loss for patients suffering from heart disease [
54,
68,
69]. Yet the results are still controversial [
54,
70]. The influence of such conditions on implants’ success should be further explored in larger studies with adequate methodology.
Discussions have also been raised regarding the effect of different autoimmune diseases on peri-implantitis, but conclusions cannot be drawn due to the scarcity of evidence [
54]. Rheumatoid arthritis with concomitant connective tissue disease had been associated with higher percentages of BOP and peri-implant bone loss in one study [
71]. Another study [
72] evaluated patients with Sjögren’s syndrome but could not show an increased prevalence of peri-implantitis. Yet the higher prevalence of mucositis in the diseased group might indicate an increase in their susceptibility to peri-implantitis over time. Further research is still required to shed the light on the association between autoimmune diseases and peri-implantitis.
While osteoporosis could not be linked to peri-implantitis, anti-resorptive medications, including bisphosphonates (BP) and hormone replacement therapy (HRT), have been gaining increasing attention. One study [
73] showed significant increase in marginal bone loss and implant thread exposure with BP intake. However, a recent systematic review [
74•] showed that a low-dose BP did not negatively affect peri-implant bone levels. On the other hand, HRT significantly compromised marginal bone levels. Still, the considerable risk of medication-related osteonecrosis, and its negative influence on peri-implant hard tissues, should not be underestimated.
Genetic Factors
Despite the general belief in a certain genetic predisposition to peri-implantitis, a clear association with specific risk factors is still to be determined [
75]. Interleukin-1 (IL-1) polymorphism is the single most researched genetic factor in the literature. This is mainly due to the involvement of this gene cluster in the encoding of two main pro-inflammatory cytokines, IL-1α and IL-1β, as well as the anti-inflammatory IL-1 receptor antagonist. Increasing levels of both IL-1α and IL-1β have been associated with peri-implantitis, and their levels were correlated with the severity of the disease [
75,
76]. Yet, studies evaluating the correlation between IL-1 polymorphism and peri-implantitis have shown conflicting results [
75,
77‐
79]. While several investigations [
76,
78] could not find a significant association between the two conditions, a recent study [
79] showed that subjects with IL-1 polymorphisms were 1.9–2.47 times more at risk of developing peri-implantitis. Discussions have also been raised regarding a synergistic effect of smoking on individuals with IL-1 polymorphisms without reaching a consensus [
76,
80].
Tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) is another pro-inflammatory cytokine associated with peri-implant inflammation and bone destruction [
75]. Studies have shown that TNF-α polymorphism increased the risk of peri-implantitis five to eightfold [
75,
81]. Yet, the meta-analysis of relevant studies could not establish a significant correlation [
82].
Very few studies have examined other genetic polymorphisms, and conclusions cannot be extrapolated due to the scarcity of the evidence [
75]. Currently, only preliminary investigations, including a wide variety of ethnic groups, have evaluated other genetic markers in association with biological implant complications. Additional research is still required, with larger sample sizes and reduced levels of bias.
Occlusal Overload and Para-Functional Habits
Occlusal overload of implant-supported prostheses is a controversial subject, and the exact mechanism in which it causes marginal bone loss is still debatable [
83,
84]. Yet several studies have demonstrated that overloading an implant beyond a certain threshold leads to marginal bone loss [
83,
85,
86]. Moreover, under similar overload, peri-implantitis-affected sites show significantly higher marginal bone loss compared with those with mucositis [
87]. Also, the patterns of bone resorption varied significantly around overloaded implants and those with ligature-induced peri-implantitis [
84]. The effect of overloading on peri-implant bone levels can be accentuated by sub-optimal implant positioning, poorly designed prosthetic reconstructions, inadequate bone quantity or its poor quality. Para-functional habits leading to elevated non-axial occlusal forces may also increase marginal bone loss [
83]. On the contrary, several animal studies demonstrate an insignificant effect of overload on bone levels in the absence of inflammation [
83,
88,
89]. Unfortunately, ethical reasons impede resolution of such controversy using controlled clinical trials with experimental periodontitis models or intentionally overloaded implants.
Attrition and wear of natural dentition or prosthetic reconstructions may be used for diagnosis of occlusal overload and para-functional habits. The presence of wear facets on implant-supported prostheses is associated with a 2.4 increase in the prevalence of peri-implantitis [
90]. However, case reports [
91,
92] have demonstrated that occlusal adjustment may result in marked peri-implant bone repair. Therefore, occlusal overload may be considered a potential risk factor for peri-implant bone loss, with an aggravating influence on peri-implantitis-associated bone loss.