Jordi Gargallo-Albiol1,2, Lorenzo Tavelli2, Shayan Barootchi2, Alberto Monje2,3, Hom-Lay Wang2. 1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Periodontics, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional study was designed to shed light on the clinical sequelae and patient satisfaction after dental implant removal (IR). METHODS: Patients undergoing ≥1 IRs were eligible. The reasons for implant failure, clinical and radiological parameters before and after IR, and the surgical and prosthetic treatments offered after IR was assessed. Patient satisfaction was recorded and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 was used to document patient self-reported dysfunction and discomfort attributed to IR. Lastly, patient expectations after IR were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with 45 implants were analyzed. Peri-implantitis was the main reason for IR (64.5%). The average implant survival time before IR was 120.3 ± 88.2 months. Signs of infection (51.7%) and bleeding on probing (37.5%) were common signs detected at the time of IR. Guided bone regeneration was the intervention most commonly applied simultaneously to IR (74.1%). The reported degree of satisfaction was high, and the overall OHIP-14 score was low. However, a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was recorded, and a statistically significant increase in adherence to the implant maintenance routine was observed after IR. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implantitis is the leading cause for IR. Guided bone regeneration is commonly applied to attenuate the clinical sequelae of IR. Nonetheless, IR does not seem to affect patients' satisfaction nor their quality of life, though a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was reported.
BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional study was designed to shed light on the clinical sequelae and patient satisfaction after dental implant removal (IR). METHODS:Patients undergoing ≥1 IRs were eligible. The reasons for implant failure, clinical and radiological parameters before and after IR, and the surgical and prosthetic treatments offered after IR was assessed. Patient satisfaction was recorded and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 was used to document patient self-reported dysfunction and discomfort attributed to IR. Lastly, patient expectations after IR were also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with 45 implants were analyzed. Peri-implantitis was the main reason for IR (64.5%). The average implant survival time before IR was 120.3 ± 88.2 months. Signs of infection (51.7%) and bleeding on probing (37.5%) were common signs detected at the time of IR. Guided bone regeneration was the intervention most commonly applied simultaneously to IR (74.1%). The reported degree of satisfaction was high, and the overall OHIP-14 score was low. However, a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was recorded, and a statistically significant increase in adherence to the implant maintenance routine was observed after IR. CONCLUSIONS: Peri-implantitis is the leading cause for IR. Guided bone regeneration is commonly applied to attenuate the clinical sequelae of IR. Nonetheless, IR does not seem to affect patients' satisfaction nor their quality of life, though a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was reported.
Authors: Paolo De Angelis; Giulio Gasparini; Edoardo Rella; Silvio De Angelis; Cristina Grippaudo; Antonio D'Addona; Paolo Francesco Manicone Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-02-06 Impact factor: 3.411