Alberto Monje1, Ramón Pons1, Angel Insua2,3, José Nart1, Hom-Lay Wang2, Frank Schwarz4. 1. Department of Periodontology, Universidad Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain. 4. Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Carolinum, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant defect morphology has shown to potentially impact upon the reconstructive outcomes for the management of peri-implantitis. Given the role that defect morphology plays upon the decision-making in the treatment of peri-implantitis, the present study aimed at assessing the morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects and to insight on the patient-, implant- and site-related variables associated to these. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cone-beam computed tomography study was carried out to classify peri-implantitis defects according to the type of defect, number of remaining bony walls and severity according to the extension of vertical bone loss. Three major defect categories were proposed: class I-infraosseous; class II-horizontal; class III-combined of class I and II. These were then subclassified into: (a) dehiscence; (b) 2/3-wall; and (c) circumferential-type defect. According to the severity the defects were further subclassified into: A: advanced; M: moderate; and S: slight. In addition, 20 site-, implant-, and patient-related variables were analyzed by generalized estimating equations (GEEs) of multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: Based on an a priori power calculation, 332 implants were screened in 47 peri-implantitis patients. Of these, 158 peri-implantitis implants were eligible. The most prevalent defect morphology type was class Ib (55%) followed by class Ia (16.5%), and class IIIb (13.9%). On the contrary, the less frequent defect was class II (1.9%). The most frequent degree of severity was M (50.6%) with S (10.1%) being the least prevalent. Buccal bone loss was significantly greater compared to the other bony walls in class I and class III defects. Age was associated with the type of defect. Age and smoking habit were associated with the morphology of the defects, while smoking habit, type of prosthesis and distance to adjacent implant were associated with the severity of the defects (vertical bone loss). CONCLUSION: Peri-implantitis defects frequently course with an infraosseous component and often with buccal bone loss. Certain patient-, implant-, and site-specific variables are related with defect morphology and severity. However, morphological patterns for peri-implantitis bone defects could not be proven (NCT NCT03777449).
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant defect morphology has shown to potentially impact upon the reconstructive outcomes for the management of peri-implantitis. Given the role that defect morphology plays upon the decision-making in the treatment of peri-implantitis, the present study aimed at assessing the morphology and severity of peri-implantitis bone defects and to insight on the patient-, implant- and site-related variables associated to these. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cone-beam computed tomography study was carried out to classify peri-implantitis defects according to the type of defect, number of remaining bony walls and severity according to the extension of vertical bone loss. Three major defect categories were proposed: class I-infraosseous; class II-horizontal; class III-combined of class I and II. These were then subclassified into: (a) dehiscence; (b) 2/3-wall; and (c) circumferential-type defect. According to the severity the defects were further subclassified into: A: advanced; M: moderate; and S: slight. In addition, 20 site-, implant-, and patient-related variables were analyzed by generalized estimating equations (GEEs) of multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: Based on an a priori power calculation, 332 implants were screened in 47 peri-implantitispatients. Of these, 158 peri-implantitis implants were eligible. The most prevalent defect morphology type was class Ib (55%) followed by class Ia (16.5%), and class IIIb (13.9%). On the contrary, the less frequent defect was class II (1.9%). The most frequent degree of severity was M (50.6%) with S (10.1%) being the least prevalent. Buccal bone loss was significantly greater compared to the other bony walls in class I and class III defects. Age was associated with the type of defect. Age and smoking habit were associated with the morphology of the defects, while smoking habit, type of prosthesis and distance to adjacent implant were associated with the severity of the defects (vertical bone loss). CONCLUSION:Peri-implantitis defects frequently course with an infraosseous component and often with buccal bone loss. Certain patient-, implant-, and site-specific variables are related with defect morphology and severity. However, morphological patterns for peri-implantitis bone defects could not be proven (NCT NCT03777449).
Authors: Rafał Pokrowiecki; Urszula Szałaj; Damian Fudala; Tomasz Zaręba; Jacek Wojnarowicz; Witold Łojkowski; Stefan Tyski; Krzysztof Dowgierd; Agnieszka Mielczarek Journal: Int J Nanomedicine Date: 2022-04-12
Authors: Víctor Astolfi; Alberto Gómez-Menchero; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Pedro Bullón; Francisco Galeote; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; Beatriz Bullón de la Fuente; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maria Elisa Galárraga-Vinueza; Stefan Tangl; Marco Bianchini; Ricardo Magini; Karina Obreja; Reinhard Gruber; Frank Schwarz Journal: Int J Implant Dent Date: 2020-03-25