Risk Characteristics of Peri-Implant Infections: A Retrospective Evaluation in a University Consultation Setting

Abstract

Peri-implantitis is a common biological complication in dentistry. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively analyze risk characteristics in a group of patients referred to a university-based consultation for peri-implantitis. In all, 190 initial cases from 2010 to 2019 were evaluated and descriptively summarized. The evaluation included various parameters such as periodontitis, smoking and oral hygiene status, implant position, type of prosthetic restoration and retention, mucosal quality, and further anamnestic and clinical findings related to the potential risk of developing peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis was diagnosed in 83% of the cases, with peri-implant mucositis alone in 16% of cases; furthermore, 38% of the patients were diagnosed with active/instable periodontitis, while 14% had stable periodontitis. Residual cement was considered as a potential co-factor of peri-implant inflammation in 43% of cases. Suboptimal implant positioning was found in 19% of patients. Peri-implantitis or peri-implant mucositis was present in about one-third of patients in the absence of smoking and periodontitis factors. Of note, 6% showed no identifiable risk factors. Factors related to an increased risk of peri-implantitis should be taken into consideration when planning implant treatment. Adequate prosthetic implant position, restoration, and cleanability remain important for long-term success.

Simultaneous Implant and Guided Bone Regeneration Using Bovine-Derived Xenograft and Acellular Dermal Matrix in Aesthetic Zone

“…The stability of the outcomes achieved through the present technique is intricately linked to adherence to proper oral hygiene protocols [ 58 ] and the necessity for long-term evaluation [ 59 ]. This endeavor necessitates the guidance and support of dental professionals in assisting patients with their home care routines, taking into careful consideration individual motivation levels and the efficacy of hygiene procedures.…”

Monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw‐retained) versus monolithic hybrid abutments with adhesively cemented monolithic crowns

“…In contrast, a systematic review underlined that there is a tendency towards more biological complications and even implant failure with cemented restorations when compared with screw‐retained restorations (Sailer et al, 2012). Many studies evaluated cemented implant restorations and identified cement residues within the peri‐implant tissues as reason for peri‐implant inflammations (Linkevicius et al, 2013; Schwartzenberg et al, 2022; Staubli et al, 2017; Wilson Jr, 2009). However, because of the small sample size and lack of power no conclusions can be drawn.…”