2018
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prevalence and risk indicators of peri‐implant diseases in Spain

Abstract: Aim To evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in Spain, as well as the associated risk indicators. Material and Methods This is a cross‐sectional study using a network of sentinel dentists, who randomly selected 10 patients with implants (placed, at least, 5 years before), which were clinically and radiographically evaluated. Case definitions were established for peri‐implant mucositis [bleeding on probing (BOP) and no bone level ≥2 mm] and peri‐implantitis (BOP plus bone level ≥2 mm). Potential pred… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

17
99
1
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
17
99
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The prevalence of peri-implantitis at patient level has been reported to be approximately 22% (CI: 14–30%) in a meta-analysis [3], consisting of 11 studies from between 2005 and 2013. In a recent cross-sectional study [4] in a Spanish population, the prevalence was 24% (CI: 19–29%), which is in line with the previously mentioned meta-analysis [3]. Together these approximations imply that worldwide every year, 2.6–4.0 million patients are at risk of developing the disease [2,3].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…The prevalence of peri-implantitis at patient level has been reported to be approximately 22% (CI: 14–30%) in a meta-analysis [3], consisting of 11 studies from between 2005 and 2013. In a recent cross-sectional study [4] in a Spanish population, the prevalence was 24% (CI: 19–29%), which is in line with the previously mentioned meta-analysis [3]. Together these approximations imply that worldwide every year, 2.6–4.0 million patients are at risk of developing the disease [2,3].…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…reported that an implant diameter of ≤ 3.5 mm was a high-risk factor peri-implant disease. 19 In contrast, many recent studies have reported that implant diameter does not influence the long-term prognosis of the dental implants. 20 , 21 , 22 de Souza et al.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Using these recommendations, a population‐based study assessing the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in the Swedish population reported that 42.2% of the patients suffered PM, while PI was present in 21.7% (Derks et al, ). A similar analysis, from a multicentre cross‐sectional study in Spain, evaluating 474 implants in 275 patients, reported a prevalence of PM in 27% (95% CI 22–32) and PI in 24% (95% CI 19–29) of the patients, respectively (Rodrigo et al, ). These high figures clearly underscore the need to find effective preventive and therapeutic modalities to control peri‐implant diseases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 80%