Mariane B Sordi1, Vittoria Perrotti2, Flavia Iaculli3, Keila C R Pereira4, Ricardo S Magini5, Stefan Renvert6,7,8, Stefano Antonio Gattone9, Adriano Piattelli10,11,12, Marco A Bianchini5. 1. Center for Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 2. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences (DSMOB), University of Chieti-Pescara, Via dei vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. v.perrotti@unich.it. 3. Department of Neuroscience and Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy. 4. Public Health Sciences, University of South of Santa Catarina, Tubarao, Brazil. 5. Perio/Implantology, Department of Dentistry, Center for Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil. 6. Oral Health Sciences, Kristianstad University School of Dentistry, Kristianstad, Sweden. 7. Dublin Dental Hospital, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. 8. Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden. 9. Department of Philosophical, Pedagogical and Economic-Quantitative Sciences (DiSFPEQ), University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy. 10. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences (DSMOB), University of Chieti-Pescara, Via dei vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy. 11. Biomaterials Engineering, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain. 12. Villaserena Foundation for Research, Città Sant'Angelo (Pescara), Italy.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether peri-implant clinical parameters (modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (B/SOP)) and local factors (type of prostheses, screw emergence, platform diameter, and abutment angulation) might contribute to the development of additional bone loss and peri-implantitis around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventy-seven external hex connection implants placed in the posterior maxilla of 124 patients were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into two groups: physiologic bone loss < 2 mm (PBL) or additional bone loss ≥ 2 mm (ABL). GEE logistic regression was applied to evaluate the influence of type of prostheses (implant-supported single crown (ISSC), fixed partial denture (ISFPD), and full denture (ISFD)) and clinical parameters (mPI and S/BOP) on bone loss. RESULTS: Among the 277 implants, 159 (57.4%) presented PBL and 118 (42.6%) presented ABL. Within the ABL group, 20.6% implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. mPI significantly correlated with the type of prosthesis and the highest value of mPI (index = 3) was observed in ISFD (23.8%). Moreover, peri-implantitis was more frequently associated with ISFD (32.79%) than ISSC and ISFDP (13.79% and 13.48, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: ISFD in the posterior maxilla presented high rates of ABL and showed a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. None of the local factors seemed to contribute to the development of these conditions. Further investigations are needed to prospectively support the results of the present study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients rehabilitated with ISFD should be carefully monitored and have more frequent maintenance visits to prevent or control peri-implant bone loss.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether peri-implant clinical parameters (modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (B/SOP)) and local factors (type of prostheses, screw emergence, platform diameter, and abutment angulation) might contribute to the development of additional bone loss and peri-implantitis around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred seventy-seven external hex connection implants placed in the posterior maxilla of 124 patients were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into two groups: physiologic bone loss < 2 mm (PBL) or additional bone loss ≥ 2 mm (ABL). GEE logistic regression was applied to evaluate the influence of type of prostheses (implant-supported single crown (ISSC), fixed partial denture (ISFPD), and full denture (ISFD)) and clinical parameters (mPI and S/BOP) on bone loss. RESULTS: Among the 277 implants, 159 (57.4%) presented PBL and 118 (42.6%) presented ABL. Within the ABL group, 20.6% implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. mPI significantly correlated with the type of prosthesis and the highest value of mPI (index = 3) was observed in ISFD (23.8%). Moreover, peri-implantitis was more frequently associated with ISFD (32.79%) than ISSC and ISFDP (13.79% and 13.48, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: ISFD in the posterior maxilla presented high rates of ABL and showed a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. None of the local factors seemed to contribute to the development of these conditions. Further investigations are needed to prospectively support the results of the present study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients rehabilitated with ISFD should be carefully monitored and have more frequent maintenance visits to prevent or control peri-implant bone loss.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone loss; Dental implant; Local factors; Peri-implantitis; Posterior maxilla
Authors: Ron Doornewaard; Véronique Christiaens; Hugo De Bruyn; Magnus Jacobsson; Jan Cosyn; Stijn Vervaeke; Wolfgang Jacquet Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Tomas Albrektsson; Daniel Buser; Stephen T Chen; David Cochran; Hugo DeBruyn; Torsten Jemt; Sreenivas Koka; Myron Nevins; Lars Sennerby; Massimo Simion; Thomas D Taylor; Ann Wennerberg Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: João Gustavo de Souza; Armando Rodrigues Neto; Guenther Schuldt Filho; Haline Renata Dalago; José Moisés de Souza Júnior; Marco Aurélio Bianchini Journal: Quintessence Int Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 1.677