Mia Rakic1,2, Pablo Galindo-Moreno3, Alberto Monje4, Sandro Radovanovic5, Hom-Lay Wang4, David Cochran6, Anton Sculean7, Luigi Canullo8. 1. PerioInserm group, INSERM UMR 1229-RMES, University of Nantes, 1, place Alexis Ricordeau BP, 84215 44042, Nantes Cedex 1, France. mia.rakic@univ-nantes.fr. 2. Institute for Biological Research "Sinisa Stankovic", University of Belgrade, Bulevar Despota Stefana 142, Belgrade, 11060, Serbia. mia.rakic@univ-nantes.fr. 3. Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Spain Campus Universitario de Cartuja, s/n, 18071, Granada, Spain. 4. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, The University of Michigan, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109-1078, USA. 5. Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Jove Ilića 154, Belgrade, 11000, Serbia. 6. Department of Periodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Dental School, 7703 Floyd Curl Dr, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 7. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 8. Private Practice, Via Nizza, 46, 00198, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant surfaces on prevalence rate reported by the studies adhering to the case definition of Sanz & Chapple 2012. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant surfaces on prevalence rate reported by the studies adhering to the case definition of Sanz & Chapple 2012. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.
Authors: Stephan T Becker; Benedicta E Beck-Broichsitter; Christian M Rossmann; Eleonore Behrens; Arne Jochens; Jörg Wiltfang Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Ioannis K Konstantinidis; Georgios A Kotsakis; Sebastian Gerdes; Michael Horst Walter Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.123
Authors: Pedro Diaz; Esther Gonzalo; Luis J Gil Villagra; Barbara Miegimolle; Maria J Suarez Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Redouane Messous; Bruno Henriques; Hassan Bousbaa; Filipe S Silva; Wim Teughels; Júlio C M Souza Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-02-22 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Sven Rinke; Marc Nordlohne; Andreas Leha; Stefan Renvert; Gerhard Schmalz; Dirk Ziebolz Journal: J Periodontal Implant Sci Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.614