PMC8261847_01
PMC8261847_02
Baseline presentation: (a) intraoral view of the mandibular left molar area
on the buccal side; (b) periapical radiograph of the mandibular left
premolar area, showing horizontal bone resorption around the first premolar;
(c) intraoral view of the maxillary right molar area on the buccal side. The
margin of the superstructure is not visible because of being subgingival;
and (d) periapical radiograph of the maxillary right molar area, showing the
overhang of the superstructure, excess cement, and horizontal bone
resorption.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig1.jpg
PMC8261847_03_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig1.jpg
fig1-2050313X211029154
The PD was 3 mm for the periodontal site and 4 mm for the peri-implant site (Figure 5, Table 1).
Five-year follow-up: (a) gingiva is receded and tightened around the
mandibular left first premolar; (b) section of panoramic radiograph shows
the increase of bone density around the first premolar; (c) peri-implant
mucosal recession is observed around the maxillary right molar implants. The
margin of the superstructure is exposed to be supragingival; and (d) bone
density is increased around the implants.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig2.jpg
PMC8261847_02_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig2.jpg
fig2-2050313X211029154
PD was 2 mm for the periodontal site and 3 mm for the peri-implant site (Figure 2, Table 1). Peri-implant mucosal recession was observed at the peri-implant site (Figure 2). In the radiograph, progression of bone resorption was not observed at both sites (Figure 2). Two years from the first visit, the mandibular left second premolar with a caries and periapical lesion was restored with a porcelain-fused-to-metal crown (Figure 2).
Bacterial composition at the phylum level. The percentage abundance of each
phylum is indicated in a bar chart (a) for the periodontal site and (b) for
the peri-implant site. The data at the pre-treatment is shown at the left
side, and the data at the post-treatment is shown at the right side. For
example, "T:Pre" means the data for the periodontal site (i.e. "T" for the
tooth and "I" for the implant) at the pre-treatment (i.e. "Pre" for the
pre-treatment and "Post" for the post-treatment). The lowermost
"Unclassified" is the taxon that is not classifiable at the phylum level but
is classified in the domain of Bacteria.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig3.jpg
PMC8261847_02_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig3.jpg
fig3-2050313X211029154
At both pre-treatment and post-treatment, bacterial composition was similar at the periodontal and peri-implant site (Figure 3). Synergistetes, consisting of only the genus Fretibacterium, decreased to zero. Similarly, the proportion of the phylum Spirochaetes, consisting of only the genus Treponema, decreased to zero at the periodontal site (Figure 3(a)), whereas there was a slight change at the peri-implant site (Figure 3(b)).
Bacterial composition at the genus level: the percentage abundance of each
genus is shown in the same manner as Figure 3: (a) for the periodontal
site and (b) for the peri-implant site. Genera are listed according to their
upper rank of phylum. The lowermost "Unclassified" in each phylum is the
taxon that is not classifiable at the genus level but is classifiable at a
rank higher than genus in the domain of Bacteria.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig4.jpg
PMC8261847_02_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig4.jpg
fig4-2050313X211029154
The increase and decrease in phyla were attributed to particular genera (Figure 4). Among them, the decrease in Porphyromonas was most remarkable at 21.7%-0.0426% at the periodontal site and 20.9%-0.236% at the peri-implant site. Although most of the increase and decrease at the genus level were similar at both sites, the genus Lautropia in the phylum increased at the periodontal site (Figure 4(a); 0.990%-5.68%) but decreased at the peri-implant site (Figure 4(b); 4.04%-0.408%).
PMC8261847_03
Baseline presentation: (a) intraoral view of the mandibular left molar area
on the buccal side; (b) periapical radiograph of the mandibular left
premolar area, showing horizontal bone resorption around the first premolar;
(c) intraoral view of the maxillary right molar area on the buccal side. The
margin of the superstructure is not visible because of being subgingival;
and (d) periapical radiograph of the maxillary right molar area, showing the
overhang of the superstructure, excess cement, and horizontal bone
resorption.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig1.jpg
PMC8261847_03_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig1.jpg
fig1-2050313X211029154
The PD was 3 mm for the periodontal site and 4 mm for the peri-implant site (Figure 5, Table 1).
Seven-year follow-up: (a) gingiva around the mandibular left first premolar
is still tightened; (b) the BOP is not observed around the first premolar,
with the PD of 3 mm; (c) bone density is maintained around the first
premolar; (d) tightness of peri-implant mucosa is maintained around the
maxillary right molar implants; (e) the BOP is not observed around the
implants, with the PD of 4 mm; and (f) bone density is maintained around the
implants.
10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig5.jpg
PMC8261847_03_10.1177_2050313X211029154-fig5.jpg
fig5-2050313X211029154
The PD was 3 mm for the periodontal site and 4 mm for the peri-implant site (Figure 5, Table 1). Progression of bone resorption was not observed at both sites on the radiographs (Figure 5). The maxillary right third molar was extracted after 6 years of treatment because of caries and root fracture (Figure 5); the extraction was already recommended before treatment, but the patient did not agree until the discomfort became significant enough.