European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Dental implants offer a reliable and long-lasting way to replace lost teeth, which has completely changed the dental industry. A 20-year follow-up period revealed a mean survival rate of 94.6% for dental implants, according to a systematic review^.1 This is a very encouraging outcome, and as implant materials and clinical procedures advance, more implants are being placed annually. Problems can occur with any medical operation, though. Peri-implantitis, a disorder that affects dental implants, is one such consequence. Because it can result in implant failure and serious problems with dental health, peri-implantitis is a difficult issue in dentistry.² The prevalence of peri-implantitis described in literature varies, but has a mean of 19.53% at the patient-level and 12.53% at the implant-level.³

According to Dabdoub et al. (2013) and Kumar et al. (2012), the peri-implantitis microbiome is a microscopically unique ecosystem that generally varies from the periodontitis microbiome. Anaerobic, gram-negative, and motile bacteria are more prevalent in peri-implantitis, according to the overall features of the microbial changes from health (Al-Ahmad et al., 2018; Apatzidou et al., 2017; Kumar et al., 2012; Mombelli & Décaillet, 2011; Sanz-Martin et al., 2017).

The natural form of biofilm investigation on failed implants has received very little interest. Actually, no thorough research has been done to show the makeup of the biofilm surrounding retrieved dental implants. With the use of a high resolution scanning electron microscope, the current research aimed to characterise the distribution of bacterial morphological types on the unsuccessful implants and assess the correlation between various morphotypes and implant design as well as clinical outcomes.