Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Lee, Chun‐Teh; Huang, Yen Wen; Zhu, Liang; Weltman, Robin

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.011

Cited by 401 publications

(362 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

288

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The present success rate of implants without peri‐implantitis or excessive bone loss (> 2mm after initial remodeling) was also higher than the success rates reported in those previously mentioned studies (81.3% and 75.6%, respectively) although the different implant design, follow‐up periods, and clinical factors in these studies may affect the outcomes. The prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis in this study was similar to the prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis in the university‐based clinic cohort and a meta‐analysis study . These hybrid rough surface implants might not decrease the risk of gingival inflammation compared with other rough surface implants although the prevalence of excessive bone loss was low.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Lee

Tran

Jeng

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 72%

Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Lee

Tran

Jeng

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With increasing number of patients receiving dental implants, the prevalence of peri‐implant disease and implant failures has increased . A recent systematic review found that PIP occurred in 19.8% of individuals and 9.2% of implants when long‐term follow‐up of greater than 10 years was recorded …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological response to peri‐implantitis treatment

Bhavsar

Miller

Ebersole

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate biological markers of peri‐implantitis (PIP) in crevicular fluid before and after surgical and antimicrobial therapy. Material and Methods Forty‐eight participants (24 healthy implants and 24 PIP) were clinically evaluated, and peri‐implant crevicular fluid (PICF) samples were collected at baseline for both groups, and at 3‐months after surgical and antimicrobial treatment (ie, n = 21 PIP completers). Samples were analyzed for interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8), and macrophage inflammatory protein‐1α (MIP‐1α) using immunoassay and the results compared between groups. Results Peri‐implantitis sites at baseline demonstrated significantly higher mean periodontal probing depths, percentage bleeding on probing (P ≤ 0.001), and mean IL‐1β concentration in PICF compared to healthy implant sites (17.9 vs 1.7 pg/μL; P = 0.02). Three months after treatment, periodontal probing depths, bleeding on probing, suppuration (P < 0.05), and the mean concentration of MMP‐8 decreased significantly compared with baseline (12.1 vs 6.7 ng/μL, P = 0.04). MIP‐1α concentrations showed no differences between the groups. Conclusion Elevated concentrations of IL‐1β in PICF were consistent with PIP. A decrease in MMP‐8 concentration in PICF at three months after treatment is consistent with a healing biological response.

show abstract

“…The systematic review of Lee et al. (2017) included 47 studies whereby the bone level thresholds for disease ranged from 1 to 5 mm and lead to a weighted mean implant‐based and subject‐based peri‐implantitis of 9.2% and 19.8%, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 401 publications

References 50 publications

Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations

Biological response to peri‐implantitis treatment

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About