Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population

Derks, Jan; Schaller, Dennis; Håkansson, Jan; Wennström, Jan L.; Tomasi, Cristiano; Berglundh, Tord

doi:10.1177/0022034515608832

Cited by 483 publications

(609 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

504

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The treatment group with the highest weight, being 1,578 implants (Derks et al., 2016), reported a prevalence of 25% with a mean bone loss of 0.7 mm, 61% of the implants showing BoP, and 17% of the implants with a PPD ≥ 6 mm. The smallest treatment group included 15 implants (Canullo et al., 2016) and detected no peri‐implantitis with a limited mean bone loss (0.2 mm) and 20% of the implants showing BoP.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reflecting on the results presented in Table 6, it is obvious that reported prevalence figures are larger when the threshold is low. Using the same implant design, Swedish studies that applied a threshold bone loss of approximately 0.5 mm concluded that 13%–25% of the implants were affected (Derks et al., 2016; Ekfeldt, Furst & Carlsson, 2017). Thresholds of bone loss of 2–3 mm yield much lower prevalence in the order of 5%–10%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Doornewaard

Jacquet

Cosyn

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.Materials and methodsPublications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.ResultsFull‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis.ConclusionBiologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Doornewaard

Jacquet

Cosyn

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, peri-implantitis is characterized by both, inflammation of the surrounding peri-implant tissues and loss of supporting bone beyond initial biological bone remodelling. Nonetheless recent investigations have recognized at least 7 definitions of peri-implantitis based on the extension and severity of the bone loss [2]. These interpretations of the peri-implant disease certainly reflect the multifactorial nature of the entity, displaying a multitude of clinical presentations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Surgical Therapy for Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review

Amo¹,

Yu²,

Wang

2016

JOMR

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe purpose of this paper was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of non-surgical therapy for the treatment of peri-implant diseases including both, mucositis and peri-implantitis lesions.Material and MethodsAn electronic search in two different databases was performed including MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE from 2011 to 2016. Human studies reporting non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis with more than 10 implants and at least 6 months follow up published in English language were evaluated. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the different methods of decontamination employed in the included investigations. Risk of bias assessment was elaborated for included investigations.ResultsTwenty-five articles were identified of which 14 were further evaluated and included in the analysis. Due to significant heterogeneity in between included studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a systematic descriptive review was performed. Included investigations reported the used of different methods for implant decontamination, including self-performed cleaning techniques, and professionally delivered treatment such as laser, photodynamic therapy, supra-/sub-mucosal mechanical debridement, and air-abrasive devices. Follow-up periods ranged from 6 to 60 months.ConclusionsNon-surgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis seems to be effective while modest and not-predictable outcomes are expected for peri-implantitis lesions. Limitations include different peri-implant diseases definitions, treatment approaches, as well as different implant designs/surfaces and defect characteristics.

show abstract

“…Por otro lado, se ha reportado en la literatura una asociación importante en la que las rehabilitaciones sobre implantes realizadas por un no especialista, es decir un odontólogo general presentaban un mayor riesgo de sufrir periimplantitis (53).…”

Section: Téticaunclassified

Factores e indicadores de riesgo de la periimplantitis como clave para su prevención

Ruíz

Culca

2017

C.Odont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artículo de revisiónLa rehabilitación con implantes dentales es un tratamiento ya común en estos tiempos. Este tratamiento es considerado costoso, y requiere también de inversión de tiempo de parte del paciente/odontólogo tratante. Si el paciente presenta las condiciones ideales, el tiempo requerido desde la colocación del implante hasta su rehabilitación puede variar entre 2 a 6 meses; pudiendo este tiempo prolongarse, si el paciente requiere procedimientos quirúrgicos previos o conjuntamente a la colocación del implante.A pesar de la creciente aceptación y éxito de la rehabilitación con implantes dentales, se han reportado diversas complicaciones. Entre estas, la periimplantitis es cada vez mas frecuente, y a pesar de eso, es una enfermedad para la cual aún no se ha encontrado una cura 100% efectiva, conllevando muchas veces a la pérdida del implante dental.La periimplantitis es una enfermedad con una prevalencia, según la literatura, de 10% en implantes y 20% en pacientes, y que se espera aumente su ocurrencia a la par como va aumentando la frecuencia de las rehabilitaciones con implantes dentales. No se ha encontrado aún una causa específica para esta enfermedad, por lo que se han definido según varios estudios factores e indicadores de riesgo con la finalidad de prevenirla y tratarla tempranamente. Es por eso que esta revisión de literatura busca informar sobre cuáles son los factores e indicadores de riesgo conocidos actualmente para la periimplantitis.Palabras clave: factores de riesgo, indicadores de riesgo, periimplantitis.Nowadays rehabilitation with dental implants is a common treatment. This treatment is considered expensive, and also requires investment of time from the patient / dentist. If the patient presents ideal conditions, the required treatment time can vary between 2 to 6 months. This time may be extended if the patient requires prior procedures before or with the implant placement. Many complications have been reported with dental implants rehabilitation.Between these, Periimplantitis has increase its appeareance in the last years. However, a cure 100% effective for this has not be found yet and therefore, often leads to the loss of the dental implant.The periimplantitis is a disease with a prevalence according to the literature up to 20% among patients with dental implants and is expected to increase its occurrence. The specific cause of this disease has not be yet defined.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population

Cited by 483 publications

References 25 publications

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

Non-Surgical Therapy for Peri-Implant Diseases: a Systematic Review

Factores e indicadores de riesgo de la periimplantitis como clave para su prevención

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About