Factors influencing the prevalence of peri‐implantitis in implants inserted in augmented maxillary sinuses: A multicenter cross‐sectional study

Abstract

Background Peri‐implantitis is widely recognized as a major cause of late implant failure, both in pristine and regenerated bone. The present study aims to evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implantitis in implants inserted in augmented maxillary sinuses and to analyze possible risk factors. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted in four centers including patients who underwent lateral or transcrestal sinus augmentation and received dental implants. Clinical and anamnestic data were collected using a standardized form. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses have been performed for both implant‐level and patient‐level variables. Subsequently, a multilevel logistic mixed‐effect model was built to analyze variables correlated with the occurrence of peri‐implantitis. Results A total of 156 patients (61 males and 95 females; mean age: 60.9 ± 11.6 years) with 315 implants inserted into augmented maxillary sinuses with a follow‐up ranging from 1 to 18 years were evaluated. Seven implants in seven patients were previously lost for peri‐implantitis (2.2% and 4.5% at implant‐ and patient‐level, respectively); 250 implants showed no signs of peri‐implant diseases (79.4%), 34 implants presented mucositis (10.8%), and 24 implants exhibited peri‐implantitis (7.6%). Corresponding data evaluated at patient‐level were 125 (80.1%), 17 (10.9%), and 14 (9.0%), respectively. At the multilevel analysis, history of periodontitis, sinus elevation with lateral approach, and one‐stage sinus floor elevation significantly correlated with the occurrence of peri‐implantitis (P <0.001). Conclusions History of periodontitis confirmed its well‐known role as a risk factor for peri‐implant pathologies. In addition, both lateral window technique and one‐stage sinus floor elevation seemed to represent significant risk factors for peri‐implantitis.

Long-Term Clinical Study of Implants Placed in Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation Using Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate

“…Six implants (2.6%) were lost by peri-implantitis. Previous clinical research has focused on the occurrence of peri-implant diseases in MFSA patients [ 44 , 45 ]. A clinical study reported findings of single implants placed 6 months after MFSA in 53 patients.…”

“…Implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis had a mean function time of 81.3 ± 27.1 months [42]. Several risk factors of peri-implantitis have been described, including a prior history of periodontitis and smoking [45,46]. Furthermore, smoking is an important risk factor for implant survival rate in MFSA patients, with a significant difference in the long-term cumulative survival rate between the smoking group and non-smoking group [37,45].…”

Peri-implant tissue conditions following transcrestal and lateral sinus floor elevation: 3-year results of a bi-center, randomized trial

“…Also, the 2-year position of the crestal bone level was found always coronal to the implant shoulder except for one patient in lSFE group [22]. Interestingly, a recent multivariate analysis conducted within a multicenter cross-sectional study identified the surgical access to the maxillary sinus as a factor influencing the risk for peri-implantitis occurrence [23]. In particular, lSFE was associated with significantly higher risk (OR = 6.75) for peri-implantitis compared to tSFE at a mean follow-up of 67.65 months from surgery.…”

“…In particular, lSFE was associated with significantly higher risk (OR = 6.75) for peri-implantitis compared to tSFE at a mean follow-up of 67.65 months from surgery. In the interpretation of their findings, the authors attributed increased peri-implantitis risk for lSFE to the combined effect of factors that may have determined early marginal bone loss: (i) extensive full thickness flap and a prolonged surgical time, (ii) compromised blood supply to the residual bone crest, and (iii) mechanical and thermal stress of the bone during underpreparation of the implant bed to obtain implant primary stability [23]. The evaluation of the incidence of peri-implant biological complications around implants undergoing tSFE vs lSFE within the context of a randomized trial remains confined to a limited number of studies [19,22].…”

Rough Dental Implant Surfaces and Peri-Implantitis: Role of Phase-Contrast Microscopy, Laser Protocols, and Modified Home Oral Hygiene in Maintenance. A 10-Year Retrospective Study

“…Bone quality (>PI in regenerated bone: caution is required in the event of poorly vascularised bone) [7]; 3.…”