Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Risks and biologic complications associated with implant dentistry

Heitz‐Mayfield, Lisa; Aaboe, Merete; Araújo, Maurício G.; Carrión, Juan Blanco; Cavalcanti, Raffaele; Cionca, Norbert; Cochran, David L.; Darby, Ivan; Funakoshi, Eiji; Gierthmuehlen, Petra C.; Hashim, Dena Talal; Jahangiri, Leila; Kwon, Yong‐Dae; Lambert, France; Layton, Danielle M; Lorenzana, Eduardo R.; McKenna, Gerald; Mombelli, Andrea; Müller, Frauke; Roccuzzo, Mario; Salvi, Giovanni E.; Schimmel, Martín; Srinivasan, Murali; Tomasi, Cristiano; Yeo, Allen

doi:10.1111/clr.13307

Cited by 89 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present prospective cohort investigation, 71 one-piece zirconia implants were placed in 60 patients and clinically and radiologically In the present study, mean marginal bone loss was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm after a mean observation period of 5.6 ± 0.4 years. Besides mobility, pain, and radiolucency, peri-implant bone loss is the most frequent criterion for success at implant level and together with BoP relevant for the diagnosis of peri-implantitis (Heitz-Mayfield et al, 2018;Moraschini, Poubel, Ferreira, & Barboza Edos, 2015). In dental literature, multiple authors have considered a marginal bone loss of equal or less than 2 mm as a criterion for implant success (Misch et al, 2008;Pjetursson et al, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort investigation

Balmer

Spies

Kohal

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of one‐piece zirconia implants restored with single crowns (SCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) over an observation period of 5 years in function. Materials and methods In a prospective cohort investigation with two investigational centers, one‐piece zirconia implants were placed in anterior and posterior sites. After a healing period of at least 2 months in the mandible and 4 months in the maxilla with immediate provisional reconstructions, the final all‐ceramic SCs or three‐unit FDPs were cemented. Patients were followed for 5 years. Clinical parameters and radiological measurements of the implants and the neighboring teeth were assessed. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models were applied. Results A total of 71 implants were placed in 60 patients. Sixty‐three implants in 53 patients could be evaluated at the 5‐year follow‐up. Six patients with a total of seven implants were counted as dropouts. One implant did not achieve adequate osseointegration and had to be removed 5 weeks after implantation. The 5‐year survival rate was calculated as 98.4% (95% CI 91.6, 99.9). The mean overall marginal bone loss from implant placement to the 5‐year follow‐up was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm. After an initial mean marginal loss before loading the implants (0.7 mm), no further statistically significant change in marginal bone level (p = .458) could be observed. Conclusion The investigated one‐piece zirconia implant showed a high survival rate, very stable marginal bone, and mucosal margin levels after 5 years in function. Therefore, it can be considered safe and reliable for the reconstruction of implant‐supported SCs or FDPs over a mid‐term period.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort investigation

Balmer

Spies

Kohal

et al. 2020

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The European population is getting older, with an increasing concern about oral health: according to Schimmel et al., implant‐prosthetic rehabilitation has become routine practice in elderly patients, with well‐documented long‐term survival rates (>10 years) . Nevertheless, coexisting systemic risk factors should carefully be taken into account by clinicians and implant success could be affected by either mechanical or biological complications . According to the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions, plaque‐related inflammatory conditions can be classified as peri‐implantitis and peri‐implant mucositis: its prevalence is still controversial, and, according to a recent systematic review, around 42% of dental implants are affected by mucositis, while a diagnosis of peri‐implantitis could be established in 23% …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of peri‐implant diseases among an Italian population of patients with metabolic syndrome: A cross‐sectional study

Papi

Murro

Bisogni

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Over the years, only few authors have studied the association of systemic conditions with peri‐implantitis. The aim of this study is to detect frequency and severity of peri‐implant diseases among an Italian population of patients affected by metabolic syndrome (MetS). Methods In this cross‐sectional study, patients with at least one dental implant with >5 years of functional loading were screened to evaluate metabolic, periodontal, and peri‐implant status. MetS diagnosis was established in accordance with the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) ATP III criteria, while case definitions of the 2017 World Workshop were adopted for peri‐implant diseases. For each implant, probing depths, mucosal redness, bleeding on probing, suppuration, plaque index, and marginal bone loss were recorded. Multinomial logistic regression analyzed the relationship between sex, diagnosis of MetS, presence of periodontitis, smoking, type of prosthesis, and location of implants and peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis. Results A total of 183 patients were enrolled: in MetS subjects, peri‐implantitis was detected in 36.9% (n = 31) of implants, and mucositis in 60.7% (n = 51), with an OR of 10.01(P = 0.005) for mucositis and OR 15.26 (P = 0.001) for peri‐implantitis, compared with subjects without MetS, where 26.3% of implants showed peri‐implantitis and 55.5% mucositis. No differences were found for smoking, implant location, sex, and type of prosthetic rehabilitation. Patients with periodontitis showed a higher association with peri‐implant mucositis (OR = 4.33) and peri‐implantitis (OR = 9.00). Conclusion Based on the results of this study, patients affected by MetS showed a greater prevalence of peri‐implant diseases, but further studies are needed to confirm the possibility of this new possible risk indicator.

show abstract

“…To evaluate the success of implant-supported rehabilitations the assessment of the peri-implant soft tissues is inevitable. An evaluation of these, e.g., in form of bleeding on probing (BoP), in combination with peri-implant bone loss is necessary to rule out an undesirable complication of implants, peri-implantitis [1,44].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Outcomes of Root-Analogue Implants Restored with Single Crowns or Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Case Series

Böse

Hildebrand²,

Beuer

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective was to investigate clinical and radiological outcomes of rehabilitations with root-analogue implants (RAIs). Patients restored with RAIs, supporting single crowns or fixed dental prostheses, were recruited for follow-up examinations. Besides clinical and esthetical evaluations, X-rays were taken and compared with the records. Patients were asked to evaluate the treatment using Visual Analogue Scales (VAS). For statistical analyses, mixed linear models were used. A total of 107 RAIs were installed in one dental office. Of these, 31 were available for follow-up examinations. For those remaining, survival has been verified via phone. RAIs were loaded after a mean healing time of 6.6 ± 2.5 months. 12.1 ± 6.9 months after loading, a mean marginal bone loss (MBL) of 1.20 ± 0.73 mm was measured. Progression of MBL significantly decreased after loading (p = 0.013). The mean pink and white esthetic score (PES/WES) was 15.35 ± 2.33 at follow-up. A survival rate of 94.4% was calculated after a mean follow-up of 18.9 ± 2.4 months after surgery. Immediate installation of RAIs does not seem to reduce MBL, as known from the literature regarding screw-type implants, and might not be recommended for daily routine. Nevertheless, they deliver esthetically satisfying results.

show abstract

Group 4 ITI Consensus Report: Risks and biologic complications associated with implant dentistry

Cited by 89 publications

References 5 publications

Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort investigation

Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5‐year results of a prospective cohort investigation

Prevalence of peri‐implant diseases among an Italian population of patients with metabolic syndrome: A cross‐sectional study

Clinical Outcomes of Root-Analogue Implants Restored with Single Crowns or Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Retrospective Case Series

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About