BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in non-smoking patients rehabilitated with a fixed prosthesis supported by two axial and two tilted implants. METHODS: Forty-three patients with a total of 49 rehabilitations were included in the study. Each patient was included in a follow-up schedule consisting in a visit every six months during the first two years and every year thereafter in which professional oral hygiene was performed and data about bleeding on probing, probing depth and bone resorption were collected. Diagnoses of peri-implant mucositis (Bleeding Index>1) and peri-implantitis (Bleeding Index>1, probing depth >4, bone resorption radiographically detectable) were made. RESULTS: The considered observational time was from 1 to 10 years. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis detected ranged from 0 to 12.2% of patients (8.7% of implants), while that of peri-implantitis varied between 0 and 9.1% of patients (6.8% of implants) in the different follow-up considered. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was lower than in most of the studies in literature suggesting the feasibility of this kind of rehabilitation, in combination with a strict hygiene recall protocol, in preventing the onset of these diseases.
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in non-smoking patients rehabilitated with a fixed prosthesis supported by two axial and two tilted implants. METHODS: Forty-three patients with a total of 49 rehabilitations were included in the study. Each patient was included in a follow-up schedule consisting in a visit every six months during the first two years and every year thereafter in which professional oral hygiene was performed and data about bleeding on probing, probing depth and bone resorption were collected. Diagnoses of peri-implant mucositis (Bleeding Index>1) and peri-implantitis (Bleeding Index>1, probing depth >4, bone resorption radiographically detectable) were made. RESULTS: The considered observational time was from 1 to 10 years. The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis detected ranged from 0 to 12.2% of patients (8.7% of implants), while that of peri-implantitis varied between 0 and 9.1% of patients (6.8% of implants) in the different follow-up considered. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was lower than in most of the studies in literature suggesting the feasibility of this kind of rehabilitation, in combination with a strict hygiene recall protocol, in preventing the onset of these diseases.