Author Year of
publication 		Study design Follow-up Population Test group Control group Results
Anner et al. [20] 2010 Retrospective study 1 - 114 months 475 patients
1626 implants 		Patients participating in recall visits for oral hygiene instruction and re-enforcement as well as professional cleaning every 3 - 6 months.
(246 patients; 873 implants) 		Patients who only attended annual free-of-charge implant examinations.
(229 patients; 753 implants) 		The proportion of patients with failed implants (P = 0.0114) and the frequency of failed implants (P = 0.0028) were lower in patients attending a structured SPT programme.
Patients not attending a SPT had an OR of 1.89 for implant failure.
Costa et al. [21] 2012 Retrospective study 5 years 80 PHP and PCP diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis Patients with preventive maintenance (GTP group): at least five dental visits during the 5-year evaluation period. During the visits periodontal and peri-implant status assessment was performed.
Oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement, when needed.
(39 patients; 156 implants) 		No maintenance (GNTP group).
(41 patients; 180 implants) 		The incidence rates of peri-implantitis observed in the GTP group (18%) were significantly lower than those observed in the GNTP group (44%) (P < 0.01).
Absence of maintenance was associated with a higher incidence of peri-implantitis.
Fricsh et al. [22] 2014 Retrospective study 3 years 236 PHP and PCP
540 implants 		Grade 1: One prophylaxis appointment per year;
Grade 2: Two prophylaxis appointments per year;
Grade 3: Three prophylaxis appointments per year;
Grade 4: Four prophylaxis appointments per year.
During the sessions, patient motivation was reinforced, patients were re-instructed in home-based plaque -control techniques and the implants and teeth were professionally cleaned with polishing paste and a rubber cup.
(192 patients) 		Grade 0: No prophylaxis appointments per year;
Grade 00: patients without any appointment in the entire observation period.
(44 patients) 		A significant correlation between lower compliance and increased PPD was detected (P = 0.032).
3-month recalls recommended.
Rinke et al [23] 2011 Retrospective study 68.2 (SD 24.8) months 89 PHP and PCP
540 implants 		Regular prophylaxis (including re-instruction and re-motivation in effective plaque control, professional tooth cleaning and polishing using rubber cups and polishing paste and application of fluoride gel) every 6 months was performed in patients without a history of periodontal disease, and SPT (supportive periodontal therapy) in patients with a history of periodontal disease.
Subgingival scaling of implants using an ultrasonic tip and hand instruments was performed is sites with PD ≥ 5 mm.
(58 patients) 		Irregular prophylaxis
(31 patients) 		Patients who did not participate in regular post-treatment programmes bore an 11-fold higher chance of peri-implantitis than patients showing good compliance (OR = 0.09, CI = 0.01 to 0.58, P = 0.011).
Roccuzzo et al. [24] 2010 Prospective cohort study 10 years 28 PHP,
37 moderate PCP,
36 severe PCP
246 implants 		An individually tailored SPT including continuous evaluation, motivation, reinstruction, instrumentation and treatment of re-infected sites. The treatment of peri-implant biologic complications according to CIST.
Recall intervals depending on the initial diagnosis and treatment results.
(79 patients) 		22 patients not adhering to SPTs - Moderate PCP: the number of patients with bone loss ≥ 3 mm (P = 0.003) or implant loss (P = 0.005) was higher among patients not adhering than in those adhering to SPTs;
- Severe PCP: the number of patients with implant loss was higher in subjects not adhering than in those adhering to SPTs (P = 0.016)
Roccuzzo et al. [25] 2012 Prospective cohort study 10 years 28 PHP,
37 moderate PCP,
36 severe PCP
246 implants 		An individually tailored SPT programme including continuous evaluation, motivation, reinstruction, instrumentation and treatment of re-infected sites.
The treatment of peri-implant biologic complications according to CIST.
Recall intervals depending on the initial diagnosis and treatment results.
(79 patients) 		22 patients not adhering to SPT Compared with patients adhering to SPTs, at 10 years those not adhering had:
- In moderate PCP: a significantly higher proportion of sites with BOP (P = 0.0001), greater mean deepest PD (P = 0.0001) and higher proportions of implants with deepest PD ≥ 6 mm (P = 0.001);
- In severe PCP: a significantly higher proportion of sites with BOP (P = 0.0006), greater mean deepest PD (P = 0.009), higher proportions of implants with PD ≥ 6 mm (P = 0.01).
Roccuzzo et al. [26] 2014 Prospective cohort study 10 years 32 PHP,
46 moderate PCP,
45 severe PCP
252 implants 		An individually tailored SPT programme including continuous evaluation, reinstruction, instrumentation and treatment of re-infected sites. The diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant biological complications according to CIST.
(75 patients) 		48 patients not adhering to SPT Compared with patients adhering to SPTs, at 10 years those not adhering had:
- In moderate PCP: a higher proportion of sites with BOP (P = 0.018), greater mean deepest PD at implants (P = 0.02) and higher frequency of implants with at least one site with PD ≥ 6 mm (P < 0.001);
- In severe PCP: greater mean deepest PD (P = 0.01), higher frequency of implants with at least one site with PD ≥ 6 mm (P = 0.001) and higher number of lost teeth (P = 0.03).

SPT = supportive peri-implant therapy; PHP = periodontally healthy patients; PCP = periodontally compromised patients; GTP = a group with preventive maintenance; GNTP = a group without preventive maintenance; CIST = cumulative interceptive supportive therapy; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; BOP = bleeding on probing; PD = pocket depth; PPD = periodontal probing depth.