Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis Case Definitions in Dental Research: A Systematic Assessment

Abstract

The aim of this review was to determine the most common peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis case definitions used worldwide in the implant dentistry literature. A systematic assessment of peri-implant disease classification was conducted using all publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar between 1994 and November 2017. Screening of eligible studies and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by 2 reviewers. The search protocol identified 3049 unique articles, of which 2784 were excluded based on title and abstract. In total, 265 full texts were screened, 106 of which met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 41 defined peri-implant mucositis. Eight (19.6%) used bleeding on probing (BOP) only; 8 (19.6.7%) used a combination of probing depth (PD), BOP, and radiograph; and 5 (12.3%) used PD and BOP. Cases with crestal bone loss of ≤2 mm in the first year and ≤0.2 mm in each subsequent year were considered as peri-implant mucositis. Ninety-three articles defined peri-implantitis; 28 (30.1%) used a combination of PD with suppuration, BOP, and radiograph, followed by 25 (26.9%) using a combination of PD, BOP, and radiograph. The main criteria in most of the studies were considered to be BOP, PD, and radiograph. Cases of crestal bone loss of ≥2 mm and PD ≥3 mm are considered peri-implantitis. Different peri-implant disease case definitions may affect disease prevalence and treatment strategies. We need to standardize case definitions to avoid discrepancies in case diagnosis and prognosis.

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

“…Although several studies in the literature reported an association between hypertension and periodontal diseases [27][28][29], we found that subjects with reported hypertension, who were living in areas where median household income was high, having lower bone loss compared to individuals who were living in areas where median household income was low. This is also supporting to the observation that individuals with high household income experienced lower difference in mean bone loss, which may indicate that access to healthcare system plays an important role by reducing the adverse effect of the outcome even among individuals who have predisposing conditions that put them at higher risk of the disease [30][31][32][33][34][35]. Nevertheless, limitations exist in this study.…”

Annual alveolar bone loss in older adults taking oral bisphosphonate: a retrospective cohort study

“…The local delivery of 1% alendronate gel was also examined in patients with aggressive periodontitis (a more severe form of periodontal disease [32], and diabetic patients with chronic periodontitis (a systemic disease that is associated with a higher risk of developing periodontal diseases [33], as an adjunct to scaling and root planing for the treatment of intrabony defects. The researchers of both studies found a significant reduction in probing depth, greater gain of clinical attachment level, and bone reforming of intrabony defects.…”

Prevalence of periodontitis and alveolar bone loss in a patient population at Harvard School of Dental Medicine

“…Our primary outcome is the level of alveolar bone on mesial and distal sites of posterior teeth as a continuous variable. We also categorized amount of bone loss based on case definition by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) into mild, moderate, and severe periodontitis [39–41] to estimate the prevalence of each case definition for descriptive and baseline characteristics.…”