Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of RANKL and OPG levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid between healthy and diseased peri-implant tissues. A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To assess RANKL and OPG levels, as well as RANKL/OPG ratio, in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF), in dental implants presenting peri-implantitis (PI) in comparison to healthy implants (H) and to implants with peri-implant mucositis (MU).

Materials and methods

An electronic search based on the PICO framework, supplemented by hand searching, was conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE, using the Ovid interface from 1996 up to and including the 17th of December 2019 in order to identify relevant clinical studies. A combination of MeSH terms and text words was utilized for this purpose. Sequential screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed independently and in duplicate. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted and mean value standardized differences, between PI and H groups, were utilized as effect sizes.

Results

Out of 1961 titles, which were revealed by the search strategy, 11 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were incorporated in the systematic review. Meta-analytical processing was performed for RANKL (4 articles), OPG (5 articles), and RANKL/OPG ratio (5 articles) in PI and H groups. The total effect for RANKL mean differences between PI and H groups indicated a tendency but not a statistical significance (P = 0.078) in favor of the PI group, while no statistically significant differences were found for OPG and the ratio levels in the examined groups.

Conclusions

There is limited evidence that levels of the examined biomarkers, RANKL, and OPG as well as the RANKL/OPG ratio, in PICF, may be considered strong indicators for distinguishing between healthy and inflamed peri-implant sites.

Clinical relevance

Biomarker identification in PICF, which could differentiate between healthy and diseased dental implants, might represent a valuable non-invasive method suitable for implant pathology and implant therapy prognosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albrektsson T, Jacobsson M (1987) Bone-metal interface in osseointegration. J Prosthetic Dentistry 57(5):597–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Courpron P, Meunier P, Vignon G (1975) Dynamics of bone remodeling explained by Harold Frost. Theory of the BMU (basic multicellular unit). Nouv Presse Med 4:421–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ghassib I, Chen Z, Zhu J, Wang HL (2019) Use of IL-1 β, IL-6, TNF-α, and MMP-8 biomarkers to distinguish peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 21:190–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bhardwaj S, Prabhuji ML (2013) Comparative volumetric and clinical evaluation of peri-implant sulcular fluid and gingival crevicular fluid. J Periodontal Implant Sci 43:233–242

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Yuanjun Li J, Wang HL (2014) Biomarkers associated with periimplant diseases. Impl Dentistry 23:607–611

    Google Scholar 

  6. Duarte PM et al (2009) Effect of anti-infective mechanical therapy on clinical parameters and cytokine levels in human peri-implant diseases. J Perodontol 80:234–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Albrektsson T, Buser D, Sennerby L (2012) Crestal bone loss and oral implants. Clin Impant Dent Relat Res 14(6):783–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Güncü G, Akman A, Günday S, Yamalık N, Berker E (2012) Effect of inflammation on cytokine levels and bone remodelling markers in peri-implant sulcus fluid: a preliminary report. Cytokine 59:313–316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang HL, Garaicoa-Pazmino C, Collins A, Ong HS, Chudri R, Giannobile WV (2016) Protein biomarkers and microbial profiles in periimplantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 27:1129–1136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nomura T, Ishii A, Shimizu H et al (2000) Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-1, matrix metalloproteinases-1 and -8, and collagenase activity levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid after implantation. Clin Oral Implants Res 11:430–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins J, Green S (2012) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1. 0 [updated Mar 2011]. The Cochrane collaboration 2011

  12. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Research methods & reporting—preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement-David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. BMJ (CR)-print 338(7716):332

    Google Scholar 

  13. Theodoridis C, Grigoriadis A, Menexes G, Vouros I (2016) Outcomes of implant therapy in patients with a history of aggressive periodontitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig 21(2):485–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wells G, Shay B, O’Connell D (2009) The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in metaanalysis. Ottawa: University of Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  15. Turner H, Bernard R (2006) Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 33:42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Karkos CD, Menexes GC, Patelis N, Kalogirou TE, Giagtzidis IT, Harkin DW (2014) A systematic review and meta-analysis of abdominal compartment syndrome after endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. J VascSurg 59(3):829–842

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gurevitch J, Hedges LV (1999) Statistical issues in ecological metaanalyses. Ecology 80(4):1142–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gurevitch J, Adams DC, Rosenberg MS (1997) Resamplingtestsformeta-analysisofecologicaldata. Ecology 78(4):1277–1283

    Google Scholar 

  20. Veresoglou SD, Menexes G, Rillig MC (2012) Do arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi affect the allometric partition of host plant biomass to shoots and roots? A meta-analysis of studies from 1990 to 2010. Mycorrhiza 22(3):227–235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Rosenberg MS, Adams DC, Gurevitch J (2000) MetaWin: statistical software for meta-analysis. Sinauer Associates Sunderland

  22. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J and Rothstein H (2006) Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester: Wiley

  23. Song F, Hooper L, Loke Y (2013) Publication bias: what is it? How do we measure it? How do we avoid it? Open Access J Clin Trials 2013(5):71–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Negri BM, Pimentel SP, Casati MZ, Cirano FR, Casarin RC, Ribeiro FV (2016) Impact of a chronic smoking habit on the osteo-immunoinflammatory mediators in the peri-implant fluid of clinically healthy dental implants. Arch Oral Biol 70:55–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. BarwascC A, Brogden KA, Stanford CM, Dawson DV, Recker EN, Blanchette D (2015) Comparison of pro-inflammatory cytokines and bone metabolism mediators around titanium and zirconia dental implant abutments following a minimum of six months of clinical function. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(4):e35–e41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Arikan F, Buduneli N, Lappin DF (2011) C-telopeptide pyridinoline crosslinks of type I collagen, soluble RANKL, and osteoprotegerin levels in crevicular fluid of dental implants with peri-implantitis: a case-control study. Int J Oral Maxil Implants 26:282–292

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rakic M, Lekovic V, Nikolic-Jakoba N, Vojvodic D, Petkovic-Curcin A, Sanz M (2013) Bone loss biomarkers associated with peri-implantitis. A cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2:1110–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yakar N, Guncu GN, Akman AC, Pinar A, Karabulut E, Nohutcu RM (2019) Evaluation of gingival crevicular fluid and peri-implant crevicular fluid levels of sclerostin, TWEAK, RANKL and OPG. Cytokine 113:433–439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rakic et al (2014) Estimation of bone loss biomarkers as a diagnostic tool for periimplantitis. J Periodontol 85(11):1566–1574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arikan F, Buduneli N, Kutukculer N (2008) Osteoprotegerin levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid. Clin Oral Impl Res 19:283–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gao X, Zhou J, Sun Y, Wang L, Zhou Y (2018) Differential expressions of biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid of Han and Uygur populations with peri-implantitis. Medicine 97(16):e0471

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang HL et al (2015) Protein biomarkers and microbial profiles in peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Impl Res 00:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sarlati FF, Sattari M, Gazar AG, Rafsenjani AN (2010) Receptor Activator of Nuclear Factor Kappa B Ligand (RANKL) levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid. Iran J Immunol 7(4):226–233

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Herzog R et al (2013) Is Healthcare workers’ intention to vaccinate related to their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes? A Systematic Review. BMC Public Health 13:154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Doulkeridou C, Vouros I, Petridis A, Zarkadi AE, Theodoridis C (2020) Interdisciplinary approach in periodontology - a mini-review and a report of two complex cases. Dental Res Oral Health 3:107–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kinney J, Morelli T, Min O et al (2014) Crevicular fluid biomarkers and periodontal disease progression. J Clin Periodont 41:113–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Silva N, Dutzan N, Hernandez M, Dezerega A, Rivera O, Aguillon JC, Aravena O, Lastres P, Pozo P, Vernal R, Gamonal J (2008) Characterization of progressive peri- odontal lesions in chronic periodontitis patients: levels of chemokines, cytokines, matrix metalloproteinase-13, periodontal pathogens and inflammatory cells. J Clin Periodontol 35:206–214

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Arias-Bujanda N, Regueira-Iglesias A, Balsa-Castro C, Nibali L, Donos N, Tomás I (2020) Accuracy of single molecular biomarkers in saliva for the diagnosis of periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 47:2–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Stadler A, Angst P, Arce R, Gomes S et al (2016) Gingival crevicular fluid levels of cytokines/chemokines on chronic periodontitis: a meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 43:727–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Duarte PM, Serrao CR, Miranda TS, Zanatta LCS, Bastos MF, Faveri M, Figueiredo LC, Feres M (2016) Could cytokine levels in the peri-implant crevicular fluid be used to distinguish between healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis? A systematic review. J Periodontal Res 51(6):689–698

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Roos JA, Renvert H, Lindahi C, Renvert S (2006) Nine-to-fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part III. Factors associated with peri-implant lesions. J Clin Periodontol 33:296–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Heitz ML (2008) Peri-implant disease: diagnosis and risk indicators. J Clin Periodontol 35:292–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Atieh M, Alsabeeha N, Faggion C, Duncan W (2013) The frequency of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 84:1586–1598

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mason M, Preshaw P, Nagaraja H et al (2015) The subgingival microbiome of clinically healthy current and never smokers. ISME J 9:268–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Giannopoulou C, Cappuyns I, Mombelli A (2003) Effect of smoking on gingival crevicular fluid cytokine profile during experimental gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol 30:996–1002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Erdemir E, Duran I, Haliloglu S (2004) Effects of smoking on clinical parameters and the gingival crevicular fluid levels of IL-6 and TNF-alpha in patients with chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 31:99–104

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhong Y, Slade G, Beck J, Offenbacher S (2007) Gingival crevicular Fluid interleukin-1beta, prostaglandin E2 and periodontal status in a community population. J Clin Periodontol 34:285–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    C. Theodoridis, C. Doulkeridou & I. Vouros

  2. Cretan District Health Directorate, Agia Foteini Health Center, Rethymnon, Greece

    C. Theodoridis

  3. Laboratory of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    G. Menexes

Authors
  1. C. Theodoridis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Doulkeridou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Menexes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. Vouros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Doulkeridou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Theodoridis, C., Doulkeridou, C., Menexes, G. et al. Comparison of RANKL and OPG levels in peri-implant crevicular fluid between healthy and diseased peri-implant tissues. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Invest 26, 823–836 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04061-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04061-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation