Biological complications and peri‐implant clinical and radiographic changes at immediately placed dental implants. A prospective 5‐year cohort study

Rodrigo, Daniel; Martín, Conchita; Sanz, Mariano

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02294.x

Cited by 64 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among patients not adhering to regular supportive implant therapy (SIT), peri‐implant mucositis was reported to be a common finding with a prevalence of 48% during an observation period of 9 to 14 years . Conversely, outcomes of a prospective cohort study with a 5‐year follow‐up indicated that implants placed in patients with treated periodontal conditions and adhering to an SIT program yielded a 20% prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis . In that study, upon diagnosis of peri‐implant mucositis, all implants with the exception of one were successfully treated according to a cumulative anti‐infective protocol .…”

Section: Risk Indicators/factors For Peri‐implant Mucositismentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant mucositis

Heitz‐Mayfield

Salvi

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

230

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Section: Risk Indicators/factors For Peri‐implant Mucositismentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant mucositis

Heitz‐Mayfield

Salvi

2018

J Clinic Periodontology

230

238

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[24,[156][157][158][159] The action mechanisms of such materials were defined as anti-adhesive or anti-infective, and were broadly described by Gallo et al [156] In general, antiadhesive surfaces prevent the surface from contamination, while anti-infective enable it to kill bacteria upon attachment. [163,164] This is due to the distinctive characteristics of the peri-implant mucosa [165] and the diversity of oral biofilm formation. [156] There are also surfaces that combine anti-adhesive and anti-bacterial properties and promote implant integration within the bony tissue.…”

Section: Osseointegration Of Porous Implantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Porous Titanium Implants: A Review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Titanium and its alloys are commonly used in almost all disciplines of medicine because of their sufficient biocompatibility and meeting of mechanical requirements. However, dense metallic biomaterials represent only an interfacial connection with host tissue, may develop stress shielding which causes ingrowth of the fibrous tissue, and are prone to microbial adhesion and development of biomaterial associated infections. Therefore, development of a new, porous titanium biomaterial is proposed to improve an implant's interconnection with bone, provide better stabilization, and reduce the risk of the loss of the implant. In this review, recent findings in porous titanium biomaterials engineering are discussed, including the structural and strengthening aspects of titanium alloys. The porosity and design of porous structures, as well as the optimization process are also described. An extensive part of this section is dedicated to manufacturing processes. The next section of the review is devoted to osseointegration of porous implants and surface treatment processes, whose purpose are antibacterial activity or local drug delivery. Summarizing the article, some future predictions have been presented.

show abstract

“…Conversely, outcomes of a prospective cohort study indicated that implants placed in patients treated for periodontitis and enrolled in regular SPT yielded a 20% prevalence of mucositis after 5 years (Rodrigo et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of patient‐administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri‐implant mucositis. A systematic review

Salvi

Ramseier

2015

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To systematically assess the efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis (PM). Material and Methods: Randomized (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) were identified through an electronic search of three databases complemented by manual search. Identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies without professional intervention or with only mechanical debridement professionally administered were included. Quality assessment was performed by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: Eleven RCTs with a follow-up from 3 to 24 months were included. Definition of PM was lacking or heterogeneously reported. Complete resolution of PM was not achieved in any study. One study reported 38% of patients with complete resolution of PM. Surrogate end-point outcomes of PM therapy were often reported. The choice of control interventions showed great variability. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes, a triclosan-containing toothpaste and adjunctive antiseptics remains to be established. High quality of methods and reporting was found in four studies. Conclusions: Professionally-and patient-administered mechanical plaque control alone should be considered the standard of care in the management of PM. Therapy of PM is a prerequisite for the prevention of peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Biological complications and peri‐implant clinical and radiographic changes at immediately placed dental implants. A prospective 5‐year cohort study

Abstract: Within the same patients, the implants placed with the immediate protocol demonstrated a higher tendency to crestal bone loss and to peri-implantitis, although these differences were not statistically significant.

Cited by 64 publications

References 37 publications

Peri‐implant mucositis

Peri‐implant mucositis

Porous Titanium Implants: A Review

Efficacy of patient‐administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri‐implant mucositis. A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About