Clinical signs, symptoms, perceptions, and impact on quality of life in patients suffering from peri‐implant diseases: a university‐representative cross‐sectional study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo study the symptoms and perception reported by patients with peri‐implant diseases, as well as their signs and their potential impact on the oral health quality of life.Material and MethodsTwo hundred and forty randomly selected patients were invited to participate. As part of the history assessment, the patient OHIP‐14Sp was evaluated together with, for each implant, the patient perception regarding the peri‐implant health status and the history of pain, spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, suppuration, swelling, and discomfort during brushing. As part of the clinical examination, the following potential signs of peri‐implant diseases were collected: probing pocket depth (PPD), mucosal dehiscence (MD), extent of BoP, presence of SoP, and visual signs of redness and swelling. Those parameters were analyzed in relation to the actual peri‐implant health diagnosis.ResultsNinety‐nine patients with a total of 458 dental implants were studied. Even in case of peri‐implantitis, 88.9% of the implants were perceived by the patients as healthy. The total OHIP‐14Sp sum score did not differ in relation to the peri‐implant health diagnosis. Increased reports of spontaneous discomfort, bleeding, swelling, and discomfort during brushing were observed in presence of disease. However, only a minor proportion of implants with peri‐implant diseases presented symptoms. PPD ≥ 6 mm was more frequent in diseased than in healthy implants (p < .01), while PPD ≥ 8 in pre‐peri‐implantitis/peri‐implantitis than in healthy/mucositis implants (p < .01). Implants with peri‐implantitis showed higher MD than implants without peri‐implantitis (p < .01).ConclusionPeri‐implant diseases are in most cases asymptomatic and not perceived by the patients. Despite being unable to accurately discriminate between peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis, PPD and MD resulted as the only two clinical signs associated with pre‐peri‐implantitis/peri‐implantitis.

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of peri‐implant diseases: A university‐representative cross‐sectional study

“…Since the sample size calculation was performed based on prevalence data, some of the tested risk/protective indicators may lack the appropriate statistical power to enter in the final model; on the contrary, some of the associations found (e.g., PPIs and anticoagulants) are based on only few cases. Another limitation was the impossibility to obtain reliable information regarding previous peri-implantitis treatment (Ravidà, Galli, et al, 2020) where (Romandini et al, 2020).…”

Prevalence and risk/protective indicators of buccal soft tissue dehiscence around dental implants

“…There is preliminary evidence that PISTD, similarly to localized gingival recessions around teeth, may represent a localized condition characterized by the apical shift of the buccal peri-implant mucosa in healthy or peri-implant mucositis implants. However, this condition can also be present at implants affected by peri-implantitis (Romandini et al, 2021a). Its diagnosis, however, lacks a fixed reference, such as the cemento-enamel junction for gingival recessions.…”

Impact of surface decontamination and systemic antimicrobials for surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

“…Peri-implantitis has become a rather prevalent complication with the increasing placement of dental implants for the rehabilitation of missing teeth. 47, 48 Infection control has a pivotal role in the treatment of peri-implantitis, and there is a need for reliable and replicable methods. The present systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy of different anti-infective protocols for the surgical treatment of dental implants with clinical diagnosis of peri-implantitis.…”