Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study

Sánchez‐Siles, Mariano; Muñoz-Cámara, D; Salazar-Sánchez, Noemí; Ballester-Ferrandis, Jose Francisco; Camacho-Alonso, Fabio

doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010

Cited by 35 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight studies were included in the meta‐analysis investigating the influence of patients’ age on the occurrence of peri‐implantitis . Age was not identified as a risk factor for peri‐implantitis for patients, nor as being protective for peri‐implantitis (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87‐1.16).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

355

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though the no effect summary could be calculated, the forest plot showed a tendency towards an increased risk for lack of prophylaxis. Definitions of the risk factor “lack of prophylaxis” varied between the 9 included studies (Figure , Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

355

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In most clinical papers, suppuration as a diagnostic parameter is grouped together with bleeding and denoted as “BoP and/or suppuration.” Only eight of 41 selected papers gave information about suppuration separately. Sanchez‐Siles, Munoz‐Camara, Salazar‐Sanchez, Ballester‐Ferrandis and Camacho‐Alonso (2015) reported only two suppurating implants of the 120 implants diagnosed with peri‐implantitis. On the other hand, in four other papers, the prevalence of suppurating implants strongly correlated with the reported prevalence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Doornewaard

Jacquet

Cosyn

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.Materials and methodsPublications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.ResultsFull‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.ConclusionBiologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

show abstract

“…This phenomenon has made nanotubular TiO2 arrays promising candidates to enhance the biological performance of titanium bone substitutes, such as dental and orthopedic implants [3]. The growing demand for a higher quality of life after joint and tooth replacement has become an essential requirement from the patients side, whereas the survival of those bone implants is compromised by the increasing incidence of implant-associated infections, recently [4][5]. The spread of antibiotic resistance among the biofilm forming bacteria exacerbates the problem that may reduce the success rate of implants and implant revisions or even result in life-threatening complications [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].…”

Section: Introdructionmentioning

confidence: 99%