Compliance with Supportive Periodontal Treatment in Patients with Dental Implants

Hu, Kai-Fang; Lin, Ying‐Chu; Ho, Kuen‐Yao; Chou, Yu-Hsiang

doi:10.11607/jomi.5457

Cited by 8 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…20 Another study evaluating factors related to compliance with peri-implant maintenance also showed that history of periodontitis was associated with lower compliance. 21 However, most importantly, it was demonstrated that treated periodontitis patients presented better Table 1. Main characteristics of the systematic reviews published in the last 10 years addressing the impact of maintenance/ supportive care on the peri-implant tissues.…”

Section: Evidence For Peri-implant Maintenancementioning

confidence: 98%

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most of the literature evaluating dental implants focuses on implant survival, which is a limited proxy for the successful rehabilitation of patients with missing teeth. Success should include not only survival but also lack of mechanical, biological, and esthetics problems. A comprehensive review of local and systemic risk factors prior to implant placement will allow the tailoring of treatment planning and maintenance protocols to the patient's profile in order to achieve longitudinal success of the therapy. This review discusses the role of controlling different risk factors and prevention/treatment of peri-implant mucositis in order to avoid peri-implantitis. Although the literature addressing the topic is still scarce, the existing evidence shows that performing optimal plaque control and regular visits to the dentist seem to be adequate to prevent peri-implant lesions. Due to impossibility of defining a probing depth associate with peri-implant health, radiographic evaluations may be considered in the daily practice. So far, there is a strong evidence linking a past history of periodontal disease to peri-implant lesions, but this is not so evident for other factors including smoking and diabetes. The prevention of biological complications starts even before implant placement and include a broader analysis of the patient risk profile and tailoring the rehabilitation and maintenance protocols accordingly. It should be highlighted that the installation of implants does not modify the patient profile, since it does not modify genetics, microbiology or behavioral habits of any individual.

show abstract

Section: Evidence For Peri-implant Maintenancementioning

confidence: 98%

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of these, 39 articles were eligible to be included in the systematic review. In addition, 4 articles were added from the references (Fardal, 2006;Kim, Lee, Chang, & Um, 2014;Konig, Plagmann, Langenfeld, & Kocher, 2001;Wilson et al, 1984); hence, a total number of 31 cohort studies (Agrawal, Jain, Jain, Agarwal, & Dubey, 2015;Cardaropoli & Gaveglio, 2012;de Carvalho et al, 2010;Checchi, Pelliccioni, Gatto, & Kelescian, 1994;Delatola, Adonogianaki, & Ioannidou, 2014;Demetriou, Tsami-Pandi, & Parashis, 1995;Demirel & Efeodlu, 1995;Famili & Short, 2010;Fardal, Johannessen, & Linden, 2003;Frisch, Ziebolz, Vach, & Ratka-Kruger, 2014;Galgut, 1991;Hu, Lin, Ho, & Chou, 2017;Kakudate, Morita, & Kawanami, 2008;Kim et al, 2014;Konig et al, 2001;Mendoza, Newcomb, & Nixon, 1991;Mendoza et al, 1991;Miyamoto, Kumagai, Jones, Dyke, & Nunn, 2006;Nicholls, 2006;Novaes & Novaes, 2001;Novaes et al, 1999;Novaes, Novaes, Moraes, Campos, & Grisi, 1996;Ojima, Hanioka, & Shizukuishi, 2001;Ojima et al, 2005 Wilson et al, 1984;Wilson, Hale, & Temple, 1993;Zeza et al, 2017), 4 cross-sectional studies (Fenol & Mathew, 2010;Gokulanathan, Balan, Aravind, & Thangavelu, 2014;Monje, Wang, & Nart, ...…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…non-compliers), the mean range between 1.69% and 64.4% (median: 29%; Q1: 20%; Q3: 39.3%) (Table 1) (de Carvalho et al, 2010;Delatola et al, 2014;Demetriou et al, 1995;Demirel & Efeodlu, 1995;Famili & Short, 2010;Frisch et al, 2014;Galgut, 1991;Kim et al, 2014;Monje et al, 2017;Novaes et al, 1996;Ojima et al, 2001;Perrell-Jones & Ireland, 2016;Ramseier et al, 2014;Si et al, 2016;Soolari & Rokn, 2003;Wilson et al, 1984Wilson et al, , 1993. Overall, 19 studies reported the number of fully compliers (compliance definition: 100% of the appointments) with mean range of 3.3% to 86.8% (median: 32%; Q1: 18.3%; Q3: 45.8%) in studies whose follow-up ranges between 1 and 10 years ( Frisch et al, 2014;Gokulanathan et al, 2014;Hu et al, 2017;Kakudate et al, 2008;Mendoza et al, 1991;Novaes & Novaes, 2001;Novaes et al, 1999;Perrell-Jones & Ireland, 2016;Si et al, 2016;Soolari & Rokn, 2003;Wilson et al, 1984Wilson et al, , 1993Zeza et al, 2017). Short-term (Agrawal et al, 2015, C de Carvalho et al, 2010, Checchi et al, 1994, Demirel & Efeodlu, 1995, Frisch et al, 2014, Hu et al, 2017, Mendoza et al, 1991…”

Section: Compliance Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, 19 studies reported the number of fully compliers (compliance definition: 100% of the appointments) with mean range of 3.3% to 86.8% (median: 32%; Q1: 18.3%; Q3: 45.8%) in studies whose follow-up ranges between 1 and 10 years ( Frisch et al, 2014;Gokulanathan et al, 2014;Hu et al, 2017;Kakudate et al, 2008;Mendoza et al, 1991;Novaes & Novaes, 2001;Novaes et al, 1999;Perrell-Jones & Ireland, 2016;Si et al, 2016;Soolari & Rokn, 2003;Wilson et al, 1984Wilson et al, , 1993Zeza et al, 2017). Short-term (Agrawal et al, 2015, C de Carvalho et al, 2010, Checchi et al, 1994, Demirel & Efeodlu, 1995, Frisch et al, 2014, Hu et al, 2017, Mendoza et al, 1991, Novaes et al, 1999, Novaes & Novaes, 2001, Si et al, 2016, Soolari & Rokn, 2003, Wilson et al, 1984, Wilson et al, 1993, Zeza et al, 2017, medium-term (Cardaropoli & Gaveglio, 2012;Fardal et al, 2003;Novaes et al, 1999;Perrell-Jones & Ireland, 2016;Zeza et al, 2017) and long-term studies (Novaes et al, 1999) exhibited mean range of fully compliers ranging between 3.3% and 77.1% (median: 31.6%; Q1: 21.9%; Q3: 50%), 13.7% and 86.8% (median: 33.6%; Q1: 26.8%; Q3: 45.8%); 11.1% and 37.3% (median: 18.4%; Q1: 13.8%; Q3: 25.8%), respectively.…”

Section: Compliance Ratementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Percentage of fully compliers in studies that were carried out in country with very high (Cardaropoli & Gaveglio, 2012;Fardal et al, 2003;Frisch et al, 2014;Hu et al, 2017;Kakudate et al, 2008;Mendoza et al, 1991;Perrell-Jones & Ireland, 2016;Wilson et al, 1984Wilson et al, , 1993Zeza et al, 2017), high (Carvalho et al, 2010Checchi et al, 1994;Novaes et al, 1999;Si et al, 2016) and medium (Agrawal et al, 2015;Demirel & Efeodlu, 1995;Gokulanathan et al, 2014;Novaes & Novaes, 2001;Novaes et al, 1999;Soolari & Rokn, 2003) human development ranged between 3%-87% (median: 32%; Q1: 23.1%; Q3: 68.6%); 14%-35% (median: 27%; Q1: 18.2%; Q3: 30.4%); and 3%-80% (median: 45%; Q1: 24%; Q3: 45.8%), respectively.…”

Section: Analyses Of Factors Across Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri‐implant therapy: A systematic review

Amerio

Mainas

Petrova

et al. 2019

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The present systematic review aimed at assessing the degree of compliance with supportive periodontal/peri-implant therapy as well as identifying patient-related factors that could potentially play a role on patient compliance. Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were carried out to assess patient compliance during maintenance. Main outcomes were compliance definition, degree of compliance and patient-related factors. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data reported across the studies, descriptive statistics were performed to shed light on compliance rate and the patient-related factors. Results: A total of 39 articles were included. No consensus regarding the definition of "compliance" was found in the analysed literature. The percentage of fully compliers and non-compliers ranged between 3.3%-86.8% and 1.69%-64.4%, respectively. Smoking habit and history of periodontal disease were found to be associated with patients' compliance. Inadequate information/motivation was found as the main patient-reported reason for non-compliance. Conclusions: Despite the high variability across studies, compliance with the supportive periodontal/peri-implant maintenance therapy was found to be unsatisfactory. Attitudes, psychological traits and construct associated with compliance remain largely unknown, and still, lack of information and motivation are paramount to be addressed during the periodontal/implant therapy to increase patient compliance.

show abstract

Influence of the level of compliance with preventive maintenance therapy upon the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases

Leone

Blasi

Amerio

et al. 2023

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A study was made to evaluate peri‐implant conditions in compliers and erratic compliers with peri‐implant maintenance therapy (PIMT), and to assess the role of site‐specific confounders.Methods: Erratic PIMT compliers (EC) were defined as presenting attendance < 2x/year, while regular compliers (RC) attended ≥ 2x/year. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were employed to perform a multivariable multilevel analysis in which the peri‐implant condition was established as dependent variable.Results: Overall, 86 non‐smoker patients (42 RC and 44 EC) attending the department of periodontology of the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya were recruited consecutively on a cross‐sectional basis. The mean period of loading was 9.5y. An implant placed in an erratic patient has 88% higher probability of presenting peri‐implant diseases versus RC. Furthermore, the probability of diagnosis of peri‐implantitis was significantly higher in EC vs RC (OR 5.26; 95% CI: 1.51 – 18.29) (p = 0.009). Among other factors, history of periodontitis, non‐hygienic prosthesis, period of implant loading and Modified Plaque Index (MPI) at implant level were shown to significantly increase the risk of peri‐implantitis diagnosis. Although not associated with peri‐implantitis diagnosis risk, keratinized mucosa (KM) width and vestibular depth (VD) were significantly associated to plaque accumulation (mPI).Conclusions: Compliance with PIMT was found to be significantly associated with peri‐implant status. In this sense, attending PIMT < 2x/year may not be sufficient to prevent peri‐implantitis. These outcomes should be limited to a non‐smokers population.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Compliance with Supportive Periodontal Treatment in Patients with Dental Implants

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

The impact of maintenance on peri-implant health

Compliance with supportive periodontal/peri‐implant therapy: A systematic review

Influence of the level of compliance with preventive maintenance therapy upon the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About