Does a history of periodontal disease affect implant survival?

Young, Lindsey; Grant, Roberta L.; Brown, Timothy; Lamont, Thomas

doi:10.1038/s41432-021-0152-8

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another retrospective study demonstrated that men were 1.65 times more likely to experience implant failure than females [ 35 ] and other studies support these findings [ 36 , 37 ]. In contrast, other publications report no significant differences between male and female patients, while the diagnosis of periodontal disease may play an important role for implant survival [ 22 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Data on the periodontal status of these patients were not available for the present investigation and therefore periodontal disease could not be assessed as a predictor of implant loss.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Chatzopoulos

Wolff

2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Immediate implant placement into extraction sockets has become a widely acceptable treatment option to decrease treatment time and enhance esthetics. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the survival rates of immediate and delayed implant treatment as well as to investigate the effect of patient- and site-related variables on the treatment outcome in a large-scale population-based study. Methods: Dental records of patients who received implant therapy were retrieved from the electronic records of the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Demographic characteristics, dental insurance status, socioeconomic status as well as medical history and tobacco use were recorded. The treatment outcome was included as a binary variable (survival/failure). Time to failure (date of procedure to date of visit with failure) was compared between immediate and delayed implant treatment in Cox regression models. Kaplan–Meier plots for the survival of both treatment modalities were created. Patient-sites without failure were censored at the last follow-up visit. Results: A total of 4519 records of implants were included. The sample mean age was 60.27 years and included 50.7% males and 12.9% tobacco users. High socioeconomic status was characterized for 82.3% of the included population and 63.0% of them were self-payers. Immediate implants were significantly more frequently placed in the maxillary arch (p < 0.001) than in the mandible. Tobacco users received more often a delayed rather than an immediate implant placement (p = 0.001). The survival rate analysis revealed there were no significant differences between immediate and delayed implant placements (p = 0.48). The mean follow-up time was 32.27 months during which 1.5% immediate and 1.1% delayed implants were removed. The estimated mean survival time for immediate implants was 68.90 months, while delayed implants placed in healed sockets showed a mean survival time of 75.11 months. A statistically significant association was found between gender (p = 0.03) and osteoporosis (p = 0.001) with treatment outcome. Conclusions: The placement of immediate implants achieved similarly high survival rates when compared to delayed implants placed in healed sites. Males and osteoporotic individuals showed significantly higher implant failure than females and non-osteoporotic patients. This study demonstrated that both immediate and delayed implant placements are sound options with predictable treatment outcome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Chatzopoulos

Wolff

2022

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Logo, embora já existam estudos prévios sobre a instalação de implantes dentais em pacientes com histórico de doença periodontal, a maior parte destes estudos não apresenta acompanhamentos de longo prazo de pacientes com diferentes tipos de doenças periodontais, além disso, são em sua maioria estudos retrospectivos sem padronização. Desta forma, resultados inconclusivos são observados nestes estudos, ora indicando uma influência negativa da doença periodontal, ora não mostrando esta influência (De Boever & De Boever 2006;Quirynen et al 2006;Quirynen et al 2007;Kehl et al 2011;Rasperini et al 2014;Ravidà et al 2021;Young et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Estudo clínico prospectivo de implantes dentários em pacientes com histórico de periodontite

Ozi Bueno

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ata da defesa, assinada pelos membros da Comissão Examinadora, consta no SIGA/Sistema de Fluxo de Dissertação/Tese e na Secretaria do Programa da Unidade. DedicatóriaDedico este trabalho aos meus pais Benedito Umberto Bueno e Lélia Ozi Bueno, ao meu irmão Felipe Ozi Bueno, à minha namorada Clara e a todos aqueles que de alguma forma me ajudaram a tornar possível o desenvolvimento deste trabalho. AgradecimentosAo professor Dr. Márcio Zaffalon Casati, meu orientador, que desde o início se mostrou sempre solicito, depositou em mim sua confiança em todos os momentos e por compartilhar seus conhecimentos com muita competência e amizade, proporcionando-me um crescimento profissional e pessoal.

show abstract

Investigation of the relationships between peri-implant diseases, periodontal diseases, and conditions: a cross-sectional study

Şahin

2024

PeerJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Peri-implant and periodontal conditions share common underlying factors, including risk factors, microbiology, immunology, and treatment approaches. Aims This study aims to investigate the potential co-occurrence of peri-implant and periodontal conditions. Design One hundred twenty-three implants were divided into three groups: peri-implantitis (41 implants), peri-implant mucositis (41 implants), and peri-implant health (41 implants). Peri-implant and periodontal statuses were assessed using the 2017 AAP/EFP World Workshop on Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. All measurements were performed by a single clinician (T.Ş.). One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the study groups according to the data. An assessment was conducted regarding the coexistence of periodontal and peri-implant conditions. Results Patients with peri-implant mucositis predominantly had gingivitis, whereas those with peri-implant health exhibited periodontal health. In contrast, patients with peri-implantitis mostly had gingivitis, with a lower occurrence of periodontitis. A significant difference was observed between the peri-implant and periodontal groups (p = 0.003). Significant differences were observed between peri-implant and periodontal evaluations for plaque indices, gingival indices, probing depth, gingival recession, and clinical attachment level (p = 0.001), (p = 0.006). Conclusions The findings of this study underscore the intricate influence of implant treatment on periodontal health. This observation emphasizes the importance of elucidating the underlying factors to improve clinical management and outcomes in patients with periodontal and peri-implant diseases, highlighting the relevance and potential impact of this research in the field.

show abstract

Does a history of periodontal disease affect implant survival?

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Survival Rates and Factors Affecting the Outcome Following Immediate and Delayed Implant Placement: A Retrospective Study

Estudo clínico prospectivo de implantes dentários em pacientes com histórico de periodontite

Investigation of the relationships between peri-implant diseases, periodontal diseases, and conditions: a cross-sectional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About