Peri‐implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012

Klinge, Björn; Meyle, Joerg

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02555.x

Cited by 157 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The latter takes place as a consequence of biologic width establishment during initial healing. In the 3rd EAO consensus conference, it was stated that this initial bone remodeling may be unrelated to infection and is not necessarily peri‐implantitis (Klinge, Meyle & Working, 2012). It was therefore suggested that monitoring of implant performance should not be based on radiographs taken after implant placement but should relate to baseline recordings once tissue homeostasis has been established, in essence 3 months after completion of the treatment (Klinge et al., 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 3rd EAO consensus conference, it was stated that this initial bone remodeling may be unrelated to infection and is not necessarily peri‐implantitis (Klinge, Meyle & Working, 2012). It was therefore suggested that monitoring of implant performance should not be based on radiographs taken after implant placement but should relate to baseline recordings once tissue homeostasis has been established, in essence 3 months after completion of the treatment (Klinge et al., 2012). Today, there is a general consensus that a baseline radiograph is required for the assessment of bone changes over time (Lang, et al., 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Klinge et al. (2012) advised that critical bone loss ≥2 mm from the time of placement of the prosthetic device, in combination with bleeding on probing, should be interpreted as a “red flag” for the clinician to critically evaluate whether any intervention is indicated in the individual case and whether follow‐up and reassessment are required to confirm ongoing bone loss.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

show abstract

“…Los rangos se calculan entre 9,6%-10 % para implantes y 18,8%-20% para pacientes (9)(10)(11). Esta variabilidad de rangos podría explicarse principalmente por la falta de consenso al definir la periimplantitis y la inclusión de muestras convenientes (12).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

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

“…Occlusal overloading (combined with plaque accumulation) may also disturb the intricate bond between the implant surface and bone thereby leading to periimplantitis and, if left untreated, implant failure [74][75][76] . Prevention of occlusal overloading is associated with performing comprehensive examinations, treatment planning, well-defined surgical and prosthetic treatments and regular maintenance.…”

Section: Occlusal Overloadingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comprehensive Review of the Local Risk-Factors Associated With the Etiology of Peri-Implant Diseases

Alshehri¹

2016

EDUJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A variety of factors (local and systemic) have been associated with the etiology of periimplant diseases. Objective: The aim was to provide an overview of current literature regarding the local risk-factors associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Data sources: Indexed databases were searched till June 2016 using different combinations of the following key words: "bruxism"; "oral biofilm"; "peri-implant diseases"; "peri-implantitis", "riskfactors" and "smoking". Study selection: Clinical studies assessing the local risk-factors associated with the etiology of periimplantitis were included. Letters to the Editor, case-reports, case-series, in-vitro studies, studies on animal models and commentaries were excluded. Data extraction: The pattern of the present comprehensive review was customized to primarily summarize the pertinent information. Data synthesis: Poor bone density and volume are associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases. Excessive plaque accumulation and history of periodontitis are core etiological factors associated with peri-implant diseases. The relative risk for peri-implantitis was significantly higher in patients with a previous history of periodontitis compared to peri-implantitis patients without a history of periodontal disease. Periodontopathogens associated with periodontitis have also been isolated from peri-implant sulci of patients with peri-implantitis. Peri-implantitis is most often manifested in patients with bruxism and tobacco smoking habit. Other factors associated with the etiology of peri-implant diseases include presence of cement excess and operator's clinical experience. Bone quality and quantity, poor oral hygiene, smoking, bruxism, occlusal overloading, history of periodontitis and operator's experience are common local factors associated peri-implant diseases. Keywords: dental implant; osseointegration; bruxism; smoking; periodontitis.

show abstract

Peri‐implant tissue destruction. The Third EAO Consensus Conference 2012

Cited by 157 publications

References 5 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

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

A Comprehensive Review of the Local Risk-Factors Associated With the Etiology of Peri-Implant Diseases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About