CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2017; 11(03): 340-344
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_28_17
Original Article
European Journal of Dentistry

Peri-implantitis and extracellular matrix antibodies: A case–control study

Piero Papi
1   Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Stefano Di Carlo
1   Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Daniele Rosella
1   Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
,
Francesca De Angelis
2   Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy
,
Mario Capogreco
2   Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, Italy
,
Giorgio Pompa
1   Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 September 2019 (online)

Zoom Image

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this case–control study was to compare patients with a healthy peri-implant environment and patients affected by peri-implantitis, evaluating the occurrence of antibodies to extracellular matrix (ECM) molecules. The authors hypothesized the presence of ECM autoantibodies in serum of peri-implantitis patients. Materials and Methods: Patients were divided into two groups: one with dental implants with a diagnosis of peri-implantitis and one control group with implants classified as being “healthy.” Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was performed on patients' sera to detect human antibodies to type I, III, IV, and V collagens, laminin, and fibronectin. Fisher exact test was performed to evaluate statistical association, with a significant P < 0.05. Results: Forty-two patients were enrolled in this study, 27 females (64.28%) and 15 males (35.72%) with a mean age of 53 ± 29.69 years (age range 32–74). The presence of antibodies to CIII was recorded in 6/21 (28.57%) patients of test group, compared to just 2/21 (9.52%) for the control group, showing a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05). Other antibodies tested were found to be not statistically significant or absent. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that further studies, with larger sample and different design, are necessary to address the research purpose, evaluating possible associations between anti-ECM antibodies and peri-implantitis.