A Peri-Implant Disease Risk Score for Patients with Dental Implants: Validation and the Influence of the Interval between Maintenance Appointments

Abstract

Background: There is a need for tools that provide prediction of peri-implant disease. The purpose of this study was to validate a risk score for peri-implant disease and to assess the influence of the recall regimen in disease incidence based on a five-year retrospective cohort. Methods: Three hundred and fifty-three patients with 1238 implants were observed. A risk score was calculated from eight predictors and risk groups were established. Relative risk (RR) was estimated using logistic regression, and the c-statistic was calculated. The effect/impact of the recall regimen (≤ six months; > six months) on the incidence of peri-implant disease was evaluated for a subset of cases and matched controls. The RR and the proportional attributable risk (PAR) were estimated. Results: At baseline, patients fell into the following risk profiles: low-risk (n = 102, 28.9%), moderate-risk (n = 68, 19.3%), high-risk (n = 77, 21.8%), and very high-risk (n = 106, 30%). The incidence of peri-implant disease over five years was 24.1% (n = 85 patients). The RR for the risk groups was 5.52 (c-statistic = 0.858). The RR for a longer recall regimen was 1.06, corresponding to a PAR of 5.87%. Conclusions: The risk score for estimating peri-implant disease was validated and showed very good performance. Maintenance appointments of < six months or > six months did not influence the incidence of peri-implant disease when considering the matching of cases and controls by risk profile.

Comparison of Two Risk Assessment Scores in Predicting Peri-Implantitis Occurrence during Implant Maintenance in Patients Treated for Periodontal Diseases: A Long-Term Retrospective Study

“…Complex interactions between risk factors have been shown to amplify or reduce their prognosis value as demonstrated by the interaction between the type of implants (bone-level implants) and the over-contoured restoration [ 7 , 8 ]. The variability in diagnosis and the prognosis value of each risk factor, considered separately, suggest the importance of developing new clinical prognosis tools for day-to-day clinical practice [ 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ].…”

An In Vitro Study of Osteoblast Response on Fused-Filament Fabrication 3D Printed PEEK for Dental and Cranio-Maxillofacial Implants

“…Unlike titanium (Ti) and ceramics implant materials, which have an elastic modulus of 102–110 GPa and 210 GPa respectively, PEEK has a lower elastic modulus (3–4 GPa) closer to the human cortical bone (14 GPa) [10]. This property helps to reduce stress shielding and associated peri-implant bone resorption, which can ultimately result in implant failure [12,13,14,15]. In addition, the modulus of PEEK can be tailored by incorporating other materials such as hydroxyapatite (HA) or carbon fibers to improve its mechanical strength [10,16].…”

Impact of Mechanical Complications on Success of Dental Implant Treatments: A Case–Control Study

“…A similar result was reported in a large case–control study to evaluate risk indicators for peri-implant disease, and the presence of mechanical complications such as prosthetic screw loosening, abutment screw loosening, or prosthetic passive misfit implied a 5.9-fold increase in the odds for peri-implant pathology 25 and consequent inclusion in a risk score to predict this disease. 33 34 Nevertheless, the fact that the results of the present study were not controlled for the presence of bacterial plaque implies both interpreting this result with caution and performing studies with stronger design to establish causality.…”