Clinical and radiographic study of implant treatment outcome in periodontally susceptible and non‐susceptible patients: a prospective long‐term study

Abstract

Periodontally healthy patients and patients with CAP show no difference in peri-implant variables and implant survival rate, but patients with GAP have more peri-implant pathology, more marginal bone loss and a lower implant survival implant rate. SLA surface had a better prognosis than the TPS surface.

Radiographic Bone Changes Around Immediately Placed Immediately Restored Dental Implants In Periodontally Compromised Sites

“…Similar to previous studies of immediately restored dental implants in periodontally treated patients [15,16] , the survival rate of dental implants was higher than 90%. These results can be compared to other studies of patients with and without a history of periodontal disease [15,17,18]. For example, the results of the present study were comparable to results of immediately restored dental implants in periodontally treated patients obtained by Horwitz et al [15] with survival rate greater than 90%.…”

“…Also, in a previous study Shibly et al [17] compared bone regeneration and esthetic outcomes between immediate and conventional loading of dental implants placed immediately after extraction in patients with a history of periodontal disease, the implant survival rate at 2 years was 96.7% and 93.3% in the immediate loading and conventional loading group respectively. De Boever et al [18] evaluated the implant survival rate in periodontally non-susceptible patients and in patients with chronic adult periodontitis or with generalized aggressive periodontitis, implant survival in the periodontally non-susceptible patients and chronic adult periodontitis group was 98% and 96% after 140 months (showing no difference), but only 80% after 100 months in the generalized aggressive periodontitis group .…”

A review assessing the quality of reporting of risk factor research in implant dentistry using smoking, diabetes and periodontitis and implant loss as an outcome: critical aspects in design and outcome assessment

“…The 5-year failure rate of implant supporting single crowns was reported to be only 3.2% according to Jung et al (2008). Moreover, it should be kept in mind that the main feature of a cohort study is observation of a et al 2011, Anner et al 2010, Arisan et al 2010, Garcı´a-Bellosta et al 2010, Gianserra et al 2010, Simonis et al 2010, Vercruyssen et al 2010, Aloufi et al 2009, De Boever et al 2009, Koldsland et al 2009, Alsaadi et al 2008a, b, Anitua et al 2008, Balshe et al 2008, Gatti et al 2008, Huynh-Ba et al 2008, Machtei et al 2008, Sverzut et al 2008, Aykent et al 2007, Doyle et al 2007, Machtei et al 2007, Sanna et al 2007, Strietzel et al 2007 et al 2004, Karoussis et al 2003, Rocci et al 2003, Chuang et al 2002, Kan et al 2002, Kumar A et al 2002, Penarrocha et al 2002, Schwartz-Arad et al 2002, van Steenberghe et al 2002, Eckert et al 2001, Kronstro¨m et al 2001, Widmark et al 2001, Berge & Grønningsaeter 2000, Lambert et al 2000, Schwartz-Arad et al 2000, Wallace 2000, De Bruyn et al 1999, Grunder et al 1999, Jones et al 1999, Kan et al 1999, Keller et al 1999, Watson et al 1999…”

Prevalence and risk factors for peri-implant diseases in Japanese adult dental patients

“…Several studies reported that individuals with histories of periodontal disease appear to have a higher risk of peri-implant diseases (13,14,50). In the present study, we divided patients with CP into three groups (slight, moderate, and severe CP).…”