Risk indicators related to peri-implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study

Poli, Pier Paolo; Beretta, Mario; Grossi, Giovanni Battista; Maiorana, Carlo

doi:10.5051/jpis.2016.46.4.266

Cited by 42 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A retrospective cohort study recently published by Poli et al indicated that patients’ age ≥65 years is significantly associated with peri‐implantitis, as elderly patients often have chronic systemic diseases …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

352

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the prevalence, incidence and risk factors of peri-implantitis in the current literature. An electronic search was performed to identify publications from January 1980 until March 2016 on 9 databases. The prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis were assessed in different subgroups of patients and the prevalences were adjusted for sample size (SSA) of studies. For 12 of 111 identified putative risk factors and risk indicators, forest plots were created. Heterogeneity analysis and random effect meta-analysis were performed for selected potential risk factors of peri-implantitis. The search retrieved 8357 potentially relevant studies. Fifty-seven studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the prevalence of peri-implantitis on implant level ranged from 1.1% to 85.0% and the incidence from 0.4% within 3 years, to 43.9% within 5 years, respectively. The median prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.0% (SSA 10.9%) for regular participants of a prophylaxis program, 18.8% (SSA 8.8%) for patients without regular preventive maintenance, 11.0% (SSA 7.4%) for non-smokers, 7.0% (SSA 7.0%) among patients representing the general population, 9.6% (SSA 9.6%) for patients provided with fixed partial dentures, 14.3% (SSA 9.8%) for subjects with a history of periodontitis, 26.0% (SSA 28.8%) for patients with implant function time ≥5 years and 21.2% (SSA 38.4%) for ≥10 years. On a medium and medium-high level of evidence, smoking (effect summary OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.25-2.3), diabetes mellitus (effect summary OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.5), lack of prophylaxis and history or presence of periodontitis were identified as risk factors of peri-implantitis. There is medium-high evidence that patient's age (effect summary OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.87-1.16), gender and maxillary implants are not related to peri-implantitis. Currently, there is no convincing or low evidence available that identifies osteoporosis, absence of keratinized mucosa, implant surface characteristics or edentulism as risk factors for peri-implantitis. Based on the data analyzed in this systematic review, insufficient high-quality evidence is available to the research question. Future studies of prospective, randomized and controlled type including sufficient sample sizes are needed. The application of consistent diagnostic criteria (eg, according to the latest definition by the European Workshop on Periodontology) is particularly important. Very few studies evaluated the incidence of peri-implantitis; however, this study design may contribute to examine further the potential risk factors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A recently published study by Poli et al stated that patients were at higher risk for peri‐implantitis when >6 months relapsed per recall appointment, which means irregular follow‐up examinations including prophylaxis measures when needed (OR 4.69; 95% CI 1.17‐18.79). This is consistent with our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiology and risk factors of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review

Dreyer

Grischke

Tiede

et al. 2018

J of Periodontal Research

352

304

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…() reported on both implant and subject characteristics but did not attempt to analyse their effects on the prevalence of peri‐implantitis. Only three studies (Frisch, Ziebolz, Vach & Ratka‐Kruger, ; Passoni et al., ; Poli, Beretta, Grossi & Maiorana, ) examined the effect of keratinized mucosa on peri‐implant disease. Ferreira et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The diagnosis of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review on the predictive value of bleeding on probing

Hashim

Cionca

Combescure

2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Bleeding on gentle probing (BOP) is the key parameter to the diagnosis of mucositis, while changes in crestal bone levels, along with clinical signs of inflammation, are required for the diagnosis of peri‐implantitis. This systematic review and meta‐analysis focused on the evaluation of BOP as a predictive measure for peri‐implantitis. Materials and methods An electronic search was performed through Medline and EMBASE databases, followed by a hand search through previous reviews and reference lists. Screening, study selection, data extraction and evaluation of publication bias were conducted by two independent examiners. Clinical studies reporting on the prevalence of peri‐implantitis, BOP and/or suppuration (SUP) after more than 1 year of functional loading were selected. Meta‐analyses were conducted to combine the proportions of peri‐implantitis among BOP‐ and/or SUP‐positive subjects and implants across studies. Subgroups were created and compared to investigate potential sources of heterogeneity. Results Thirty‐one studies were selected for analysis. Inconsistent definitions of peri‐implantitis were reported across the studies. Twenty‐nine studies reported data on implant‐level and twenty publications reported on subject‐level. The combined proportion of peri‐implantitis was 24.1% (95% CI 19.3–29.7) in BOP‐positive implants and 33.8% (95% CI 26.7–41.6) for BOP‐positive cases. However, the degree of variability among studies was high; the prediction intervals were 10.3‐69.3 and 6.9‐57.8, respectively. Evidence of asymmetry or publication bias could not be statistically detected. Short observation periods were significantly associated with lower proportions of peri‐implantitis among BOP‐positive implants. Conclusions For BOP‐positive implants, there was a 24.1% chance to be diagnosed with peri‐implantitis; while for BOP‐positive patients, there was a 33.8% probability to be diagnosed with peri‐implantitis. This probability varied across study populations. Clinicians should be aware of the considerable false‐positive rate of BOP to diagnose peri‐implantitis.

show abstract

“…Several previous investigations have indicated that insufficient keratinized tissue predisposes individuals to peri‐implant disease (Poli, Beretta, Grossi, & Maiorana, ; Pranskunas, Poskevicius, Juodzbalys, Kubilius, & Jimbo, ). In the present investigation, while keratinized tissue <2 mm did emerge as a discriminant between health and disease, it did not have significant predictive power in the classification algorithm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%