Cited by 313Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesOral microbiology and periodontitis researchPeriodontal Regeneration and Treatments

Peri‐implant mucositis

Open access
Heitz‐Mayfield, Lisa J.A., Salvi, Giovanni E.·2018·Journal of Periodontology

Abstract

Objectives: This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri‐implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri‐implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri‐implant health to the biofilm‐induced peri‐implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri‐implant mucositis, 4) the long‐standing peri‐implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri‐implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri‐implant mucositis. Methods: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri‐implant[All Fields] AND (“mucositis”[MeSH Terms] OR “mucositis”[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross‐sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri‐implant mucositis as well as experimental peri‐implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included. Findings: Peri‐implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause‐and‐effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri‐implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long‐standing peri‐implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3‐week) experimental peri‐implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm‐induced peri‐implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri‐implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement. Conclusions: Peri‐implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host–microbe homeostasis at the implant–mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri‐implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri‐implant mucositis. An understanding of peri‐implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri‐implantitis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jper.16-0488

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]1. Albrektsson T, Isidor F. Consensus report of session IV. Proceed- ings of the first European workshop on periodontology. Lang NP, Karring T, eds. London: Quintessence;1994:365-369.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heitz‐Mayfield, L. J. A., & Salvi, G. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Bern (CH)
Corresponding author
Heitz‐Mayfield, Lisa J.A.
Venue
Journal of Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06
Volume
89
Issue
S1
Pages
S257-S266
ISSN
  • 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-3670
OpenAlex
W2922226940
Cited by
307
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 6
FWCI
6.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bern Open Repository and Information System (University of Bern) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
Keywords
peri-implant mucositis, dental implants, bacterial biofilms, peri-implantitis, risk factors, smoking, radiation, diabetes mellitus, keratinized mucosa, luting cement, host biomarkers, inflammatory cell infiltration, reversibility, gingivitis, periodontitis, marginal bone loss, host-microbe interactions
MeSH terms
Animals, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dental Plaque, Humans, Prospective Studies, Retrospective Studies, Dental Implants, Mucositis, Peri-Implantitis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review