AIM: The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for publications up to January 1st 2012. Studies reporting on the bleeding tendency of the peri-implant mucosa and/or studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-five publications describing 46 studies were selected. One study described both FES and PES, and all other studies described either FES or PES. Subgroup analyses were performed according to dental status (fully/partially edentulous), follow-up time (≥5 years and ≥ 10 years) and study design (prospective/cross-sectional). FES harboured more plaque at their implants than PES. Modified bleeding index scores were significantly higher in FES, but no differences in bleeding on probing, implant loss and probing pocket depth were observed between FES and PES. No meta-analysis could be performed on prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Overall prevalence of peri-implantitis was 0-3.4% after 5 years and 5.8-16.9% after 10 years of implant evaluation. CONCLUSION: FES and PES show comparable implant survival rates. However, no conclusion can be drawn regarding differences in prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis between FES and PES.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for publications up to January 1st 2012. Studies reporting on the bleeding tendency of the peri-implant mucosa and/or studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis were considered. RESULTS: Fifty-five publications describing 46 studies were selected. One study described both FES and PES, and all other studies described either FES or PES. Subgroup analyses were performed according to dental status (fully/partially edentulous), follow-up time (≥5 years and ≥ 10 years) and study design (prospective/cross-sectional). FES harboured more plaque at their implants than PES. Modified bleeding index scores were significantly higher in FES, but no differences in bleeding on probing, implant loss and probing pocket depth were observed between FES and PES. No meta-analysis could be performed on prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Overall prevalence of peri-implantitis was 0-3.4% after 5 years and 5.8-16.9% after 10 years of implant evaluation. CONCLUSION:FES and PES show comparable implant survival rates. However, no conclusion can be drawn regarding differences in prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis between FES and PES.