Pedro Diaz1, Esther Gonzalo2, Luis J Gil Villagra1, Barbara Miegimolle1, Maria J Suarez1. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain. esgonzal@ucm.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is a usual finding but estimates of its prevalence fluctuate very much. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. This systematic review aims to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis and the effect of different study designs, function times and use of probing depth on prevalence rate. METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published from January 2005 to December 2021, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Fifty-seven articles were included in this study. RESULTS: Prevalence of peri-implantitis was 19.53% (95% CI 12.87-26.19) at the patient-level, and 12.53% (95% CI 11.67-13.39) at the implant-level and it remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition. The use of probing depth like diagnostic criteria affected the prevalence data. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that it remains essential the identification of the diagnostic markers for more accurate disease classification.
BACKGROUND: Peri-implantitis is a usual finding but estimates of its prevalence fluctuate very much. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. This systematic review aims to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis and the effect of different study designs, function times and use of probing depth on prevalence rate. METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published from January 2005 to December 2021, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Fifty-seven articles were included in this study. RESULTS: Prevalence of peri-implantitis was 19.53% (95% CI 12.87-26.19) at the patient-level, and 12.53% (95% CI 11.67-13.39) at the implant-level and it remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition. The use of probing depth like diagnostic criteria affected the prevalence data. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that it remains essential the identification of the diagnostic markers for more accurate disease classification.
Authors: Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel; Sheyla Christine Lira Montenegro; Poliana Medeiros Cunha Dantas; Ana Luísa de Barros Pascoal; Kenio Costa Lima; Patrícia Dos Santos Calderon Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Stefan Vandeweghe; Deon Ferreira; Louis Vermeersch; Margot Mariën; Hugo De Bruyn Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 5.977
Authors: Ioannis K Konstantinidis; Georgios A Kotsakis; Sebastian Gerdes; Michael Horst Walter Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol Date: 2015 Impact factor: 3.123
Authors: Daniel Rodrigo; Ignacio Sanz-Sánchez; Elena Figuero; Juan Carlos Llodrá; Manuel Bravo; Raul G Caffesse; Nuria Vallcorba; Adrián Guerrero; David Herrera Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Vivianne Chappuis; Ramona Buser; Urs Brägger; Michael M Bornstein; Giovanni E Salvi; Daniel Buser Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 3.932