Dental implants are used to replace missing teeth and to help patients recover lost oral function and improve aesthetics. Implants present high survival rates up to 97.1% at 10 years (Roccuzzo et al., 2014), 82.4% at 10-16 years (Simonis et al., 2010) and 73.4% at 20 years (Deporter et al., 2014). However, biological and mechanical complications may occur more frequently during implant function in 32.4% at implant level and 34.6% at patient level (Tenenbaum

Background. The association between peri-implant diseases and the periodontal, implant, and prosthesis characteristics has been characterized in various ways. Purpose. The aim of this study was to evaluate the link between the peri-implant and periodontal status and the influence of implant and prosthesis parameters during implant follow-up. Materials and Methods. One hundred and seven patients with a total of 310 implants that had at least one year of function who were attending periodontal and implant maintenance at a university clinic setting were included in this cross-sectional study. The demographic, periodontal, peri-implant tissue, implant, and prosthesis parameters were recorded. A pocket depth > 4 mm with bleeding on probing defined periodontal/peri-implant soft tissue diseased sites. Analyses were performed at the patient and implant levels using univariable and multivariable mixed regression analysis. Results. The mean implant follow-up was 7.22 years. At the patient level, the bleeding on probing and pocket depth measurements were more pronounced around the implant than around the teeth. The opposite was observed for plaque and the clinical attachment levels. At the implant level, multivariable analysis showed that the periodontal and corresponding peri-implant tissue parameters, such as diseased sites, were closely related. The implant location, bone level, and number were selectively associated with the implant bone level, while cemented retention and emergence restoration profile influenced the implant pocket depth. Conclusions. The present study suggested that clinical peri-implant and periodontal soft tissue statuses were different, which could be a consequence of the initial implant and prosthesis healing process. However, during implant follow-up, the peri-implant parameters were predominantly associated with their corresponding periodontal parameters regardless of an association with the implant and prosthesis characteristics. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03841656.

Background: There is a need for reliable risk assessment tools to better predict peri-implantitis occurrence. This study compared the long-term prognosis value of two models of risk assessment scoring in predicting peri-implantitis. Methods: Seventy-three patients with treated periodontitis representing 232 implants and attending long-term implant maintenance were evaluated. The Periodontal Risk Assessment (PRA) score, which combines only periodontal risk factors/indicators, and the Implant Risk Assessment (IRA) score, which combines both periodontal and implant risk factors/indicators, were calculated during implant maintenance. Peri-implantitis was defined by the presence of probing depth ≥6 mm with bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone level ≥3 mm. Analyses were performed at the patient level. Results: The mean implant follow-up was 6.5 years. Peri-implantitis incidence was 17.8%, and high-risk PRA and IRA percentages were 36.9% and 27.3%, respectively. High-risk PRA and IRA were significantly associated with peri-implantitis incidence, with hazard ratio (HR) = 4.8 and 3.65, respectively. Risk factors/indicators considered separately showed reduced associations with peri-implantitis. Conclusions: The PRA score combining periodontal parameters and IRA score combining both periodontal and implant parameters have comparable value in predicting peri-implantitis. These scores could allow practicians to intercept the risk of peri-implantitis and to manage follow-up modalities in patients with treated periodontitis.

No abstract