Prevalence of peri-implant mucositis

Henriques, Paulo Sérgio Gomes; Rodrigues, Ana Elisa Amaro; Peruzzo, Daiane Cristina; Okajima, Luciana Satie; Trevensolli, Nathália

doi:10.1590/1981-8637201600030000103009

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peri-implant diseases are defined as infectiousinflammatory lesions that develop in the tissues around the implants, and are currently considered an emerging problem [1,2]. Peri-implant diseases can be classified as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Alves¹,

Duarte

Martinez

et al. 2019

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the outcomes of the treatment of peri-implant defects, using Guided Bone Regeneration. Methods: A literature search was performed based on the PICO methodology in the PubMed/Medline, SciELO, Lilacs electronic databases, CAPES periodicals and the Cochrane Library. We included studies using bovine mineral matrix, associated to a collagen membrane for the treatment of peri-implantitis by Guided Bone Regeneration. Results: Of 1,163 studies, 10 were included in this review after applying the evaluation criteria. A total of 269 implants were treated in 260 patients. The follow-up period ranged from 6 to 48 months. The studies evaluated outcome in terms of reduction in probing depth, gain of clinical attachment and healing of the bony defect. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to perform meta-analysis. Conclusion: Treatment of peri-implant lesions with Guided Bone Regeneration is a viable modality of treatment, providing reduction in bleeding on probing, as well as gain of clinical attachment. Complete filling of the defect is, however, an unpredictable result.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Alves¹,

Duarte

Martinez

et al. 2019

RGO, Rev. Gaúch. Odontol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Few studies have presented PIM prevalence rates over 70%. Henriques et al (2016) reported that 81% of implants placed at a Brazilian University were diagnosed with PIM. The average follow-up time in that study was 2.6 years.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of peri-implant mucositis at single tooth bone level dental implants in a South African population

Stander¹,

Botha²,

Pontes³

et al. 2019

S. Afr. dent. j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Cross‐Sectional Study of Peri‐Implant Diseases in a Random Norwegian Population: Prevalence, Risk Indicators, and Clinical Validation of Patient‐Reported Outcomes

Mauland,

Sørensen,

Aarbu

et al. 2024

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe primary aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in a randomly selected Norwegian population. The secondary aims were to explore risk indicators for peri‐implant diseases and to validate self‐reported outcome measures from a survey with clinical parameters.Material and MethodsPatients (n = 3083) rehabilitated with dental implants in 2014 were mailed a questionnaire and invited to a clinical examination. A randomly selected subset of responders underwent a clinical examination (n = 242). Full mouth clinical and radiographic examinations were conducted. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess patient‐related risk indicators for peri‐implantitis. Self‐reported data were compared with data from the clinical examination using Spearman correlation and binary logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of peri‐implantitis was 17.0% at patient level and 8.6% at implant level, according to the 2018 classification. Risk indicators for peri‐implantitis included smoking and periodontitis in the adjusted model. The correlation was strong (r = 0.91, p < 0.001) between number of self‐reported implants and clinical counts, whereas self‐reported peri‐implant inflammation was associated with peri‐implantitis (OR 6.4 [95% CI 3.0, 13.7]).ConclusionsSmoking and periodontitis were identified as key risk indicators for peri‐implantitis. Questionnaire data rendered clinically valid estimates of implant number, and self‐reported peri‐implant inflammation was associated with clinical peri‐implantitis.

show abstract

Prevalence of peri-implant mucositis

Cited by 3 publications

References 20 publications

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Clinical outcomes of peri-implantitis treated with bone substitute and resorbable membrane: a literature review with a systematic approach

Prevalence of peri-implant mucositis at single tooth bone level dental implants in a South African population

A Cross‐Sectional Study of Peri‐Implant Diseases in a Random Norwegian Population: Prevalence, Risk Indicators, and Clinical Validation of Patient‐Reported Outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About