Does the number of implants have any relation with peri-implant disease?

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the number of pillar implants of implant-supported fixed prostheses and the prevalence of periimplant disease.Material and MethodsClinical and radiographic data were obtained for the evaluation. The sample consisted of 32 patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses in function for at least one year. A total of 161 implants were evaluated. Two groups were formed according to the number of implants: G1) ≤5 implants and G2) >5 implants. Data collection included modified plaque index (MPi), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), width of keratinized mucosa (KM) and radiographic bone loss (BL). Clinical and radiographic data were grouped for each implant in order to conduct the diagnosis of mucositis or peri-implantitis.ResultsClinical parameters were compared between groups using Student's t test for numeric variables (KM, PD and BL) and Mann-Whitney test for categorical variables (MPi and BOP). KM and BL showed statistically significant differences between both groups (p<0.001). Implants from G1 – 19 (20.43%) – compared with G2 – 26 (38.24%) – showed statistically significant differences regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis (p=0.0210).ConclusionIt seems that more than 5 implants in total fixed rehabilitations increase bone loss and consequently the prevalence of implants with periimplantitis. Notwithstanding, the number of implants does not have any influence on the prevalence of mucositis.

Occurrence of peri‐implant diseases and risk indicators at the patient and implant levels: A multilevel cross‐sectional study

“…Additionally, in the present study individuals with four implants or more presented approximately two times higher probability of having peri‐implantitis. Corroborating the findings of previous studies that described that a higher number of rehabilitated implants increased the risk of peri‐implantitis because provides more sites accessible to biofilm and susceptible to peri‐implant lesions …”

Frequency of peri‐implant diseases and associated factors

“…Passoni et al. . evaluated the number of implants compared with peri‐implant disease and found that patients that were rehabilitated with more than five implants had a higher prevalence of peri‐implant disease.…”

“…The occurrence of these diseases has been reported to cause failures and can lead to implant loss; these lesions are commonly asymptomatic and frequently detected in follow‐up visits (Passoni et al. ). Dental plaque accumulation, poor oral hygiene (Ferreira et al.…”

“…Mucositis is described as an inflammatory lesion in the mucosa around implants, while peri-implantitis affects the bone-implant support and is characterized by bone loss (Lindhe & Meyle 2008). The occurrence of these diseases has been reported to cause failures and can lead to implant loss; these lesions are commonly asymptomatic and frequently detected in follow-up visits (Passoni et al 2014). Dental plaque accumulation, poor oral hygiene (Ferreira et al 2006;Karoussis et al 2007), history of previous periodontal disease, diabetes, alcohol consumption, smoking and genetics are all considered to be possible risk factors for the onset of peri-implant diseases (Daubert et al 2015).…”

Two to six‐year disease resolution and marginal bone stability rates of a modified resective‐implantoplasty therapy in 32 peri‐implantitis cases

“…inflammation and marginal bone loss 1,30. So even though,10.7% of the treated cases showed BOP in the follow-up evaluation, this positive parameter was not considered as presence of disease since it was not correlated with other inflammation and bone loss signs in the treated implants.Furthermore, various studies have claimed that one of the main etiological factors of PI is plaque accumulation 4,5,31,32. This study considered a surgical anti-biofilm strategy to eliminate or ameliorate this etiologic condition.…”