Changes of clinical parameters at implants: A retrospective comparison of implants versus natural teeth over 5 years of supportive periodontal therapy

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare clinical parameters of implants versus natural teeth over a period of 5 years during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).Material and MethodsA total of 421 SPT patients were screened for implants (I) and corresponding control teeth (C). Data (patient level [P]: sex, age, smoking status, systemic diseases, adherence, oral hygiene indices, mean probing depth [PD]P, bleeding on probing [BOP]P, periodontal risk profile; implant/control tooth level [I/C]: PDI/C, BOPI/C; site level at implants [SITE]: position, dental arch, aspect, BOPSITE) were assessed at the first SPT session where the implant was probed (T1) and 5 years later (T2). The influence of patient and implant/control‐related factors on PDI/C/BOPI/C was tested (linear mixed model) as well as the influence of site‐specific factors on the PDSITE change (multilevel regression).ResultsA total of 70 patients (151 implants) were included. Mean PDI was 2.75 ± 0.85 mm (T1) and 2.87 ± 0.79 mm (T2). Mean PDC was 2.42 ± 0.66 mm (T1) and 2.49 ± 0.71 mm (T2). BOPI increased from 8.62 ± 15.01% (T1) to 24.06 ± 26.79% (T2) and BOPC from 9.97 ± 17.78% (T1) to 15.52 ± 22.69% (T2). The differences between implants and controls were significant for BOP (p = .0032). At T2, BOPI/C was associated with periodontal risk (p = .0351). The site‐specific analysis revealed an association of BOPSITE at T1 with the progression of PDSITE (p = .0058).ConclusionsProbing depths of implants and controls seem to change similarly during SPT but retention of inflammation‐free conditions at implants appears to be more difficult compared to natural teeth. Patients with a high‐risk profile appear to have an increased susceptibility for BOP around implants, and BOP at implants seems to be a predictor for further PD increase.

Impact of smoking on peri‐implant bleeding on probing

“…Consistently with our results, three recent studies [47][48][49] found that BOP exhibited less frequently in S despite higher values of plaque and PPD, however, these outcomes were not confirmed by a multivariate analysis. Moreover, three previous cross-sectional studies 26,27,50 supported the association that was found in the present study between BOP and PPD. Yet, in those reports smoking status failed to be significantly associated with BOP after controlling for potential confounders.…”

The Effectiveness of Osseodensification Drilling Protocol for Implant Site Osteotomy: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis

“…The placement of a dental implant involves one surgery moment, a prosthetic moment, and a step of periodic follow-up to assess the success and the maintaining of the ideal conditions of dental implants and patients’ tissues [ 18 ]. There are some factors that may influence the result of the treatment; some depend on the patient, such as the presence of systemic diseases (diabetes mellitus, diseases of coagulation, osteoporosis) [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ], therapy with anticoagulants, bisphosphonates, cardio aspirin [ 24 ], physiology and anatomy of the treated structured (bone quantity available and density, mental nerve not far from the level of the bone crest) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ]; others depend on the operator (experience, methods, and instruments used, team skills) [ 33 ]. Nevertheless, we must consider that also in healthy patients and experienced operators, some implant complications (peri-implantitis, bone dehiscence, and impossibility to obtain ideal implant stability) may be a very common situation because of other etiologic agents, such as biomechanical factors or inadequate preparation of the site hosting the implant [ 19 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 33 , 34 ].…”

Effect of crown seating methods on the remnant cement in the subgingival region of the cement- retained implant crown

“…The implant has no periodontal ligaments between the bone and the implant, and the bres are arranged in parallel, which cannot provide a physical barrier to bacterial invasion and limits the progression of periodontal disease 13 . Therefore, unlike natural teeth, implants are more vulnerable to in ltration by external substances or bacteria [15][16][17] . In addition, it is clinically di cult to determine whether cement remains in the subgingival region5 .…”