Peri‐implantitis susceptibility as it relates to periodontal therapy and supportive care

Pjetursson, Bjarni E.; Helbling, Christoph; Weber, Hans‐Peter; Matuliene, Giedre; Salvi, Giovanni E.; Brägger, Urs; Schmidlin, Kurt; Zwahlen, Marcel; Lang, Niklaus P.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02474.x

Cited by 162 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(76 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2017) made a distinction between clinical peri‐implant disease definitions according to Pjetursson et al. (2012) and the prevalence of peri‐implantitis based on radiographic diagnosis. Derks et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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

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%

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

“…Several studies reported that individuals with histories of periodontal disease appear to have a higher risk of peri-implant diseases (13,14,50). In the present study, we divided patients with CP into three groups (slight, moderate, and severe CP).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…A number of studies have reported fairly high prevalences for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (5,(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Some evidence suggests that poor oral hygiene (9), history of periodontitis (13,14), smoking (15), lack of keratinized mucosa (16), and implant surface topography (17) are associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Furthermore, periodontally compromised patients who did not completely adhere to supportive periodontal therapy had a higher implant failure rate (18,19).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, periodontal pathogens can translocate from periodontally involved teeth to peri-implant sulci in partially dentate patients (23,24). These findings highlight the importance of periodontal treatment of residual dentition before placement of osseointegrated dental implants (14,25). However, a recent hypothesis holds that the core microbiota in peri-implantitis and periodontitis exhibits intraindividual variation (26,27).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevalence and risk factors for peri-implant diseases in Japanese adult dental patients

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the prevalences and risk factors for peri-implant diseases in Japanese adult dental patients attending a follow-up visit at dental hospitals or clinics as part of their maintenance program. This cross-sectional multicenter study enrolled patients with dental implants who attended regular check-ups as part of a periodontal maintenance program during the period from October 2012 through September 2013. Patients with implants with at least 3 years of loading time were included in the study. The condition of peri-implant tissue was examined and classified into the following categories: healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Patients were also evaluated for implant risk factors. A total of 267 patients (110 men, 157 women; mean age: 62.5 ± 10.7 years) were analyzed. The prevalence of patient-based peri-implant mucositis was 33.3% (n = 89), and the prevalence of peri-implantitis was 9.7% (n = 26). Poor oral hygiene and a history of periodontitis were strong risk factors for peri-implant disease. The present prevalences were lower than those previously reported. The quality of periodontal therapy before and after implant installation and patient compliance and motivation, as indicated by plaque control level, appear to be important in maintaining peri-implant tissue health.

show abstract

“…Several authors have demonstrated that patients with a history of periodontitis are more prone to presenting peri-implant diseases. [13][14][15][16] The literature seems to present no controversy over the negative impact of poor periodontal conditions on implant success, although it is also known that supportive periodontal programs can increase the rate of success for dental implants even in patients with a history of periodontal disease, 17,18 as long as no history of aggressive periodontitis is associated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence and Possible Risk Factors of Peri-implantitis: A Concept Review

Marcantonio

Nícoli

Marcantonio

et al. 2015

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of this review is to estimate the prevalence of peri-implantitis, as well as to determine possible risk factors associated with its development in patients treated with oral implants.Background: Although implant therapy has been identified as a successful and predictable treatment for partially and fully edentulous patients, complications and failures can occur. Periimplantitis is considered a biologic complication that results in bone loss around implants and may lead to implant treatment failure. Results:A great variation has been observed in the literature regarding the prevalence of peri-implantitis according to the diagnostic criteria used to define peri-implantitis. The prevalence ranges from 4.7 to 43% at implant level, and from 8.9 to ≥ 56% at patient level. Many risk factors that may lead to the establishment and progression of peri-implantitis have been suggested. There is strong evidence that presence and history of periodontitis are potential risk factors for peri-implantitis. Cigarette smoking has not yet been conclusively established as a risk factor for peri-implantitis, although extra care should be taken with dental implant in smokers. Other risk factors, such as diabetes, genetic traits, implant surface roughness and presence of keratinized mucosa still require further investigation. Clinical significance: The knowledge of the real impact of peri-implantitis on the outcome of treatments with oral implants as well as the identification of risk factors associated to this inflammatory condition are essential for the development of supportive maintenance programs and the establishment of prevention protocols. Conclusion: Peri-implantitis is not an uncommon complication following implant therapy. A higher prevalence of peri-implantitis

show abstract

Peri‐implantitis susceptibility as it relates to periodontal therapy and supportive care

Cited by 162 publications

References 40 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

Prevalence and risk factors for peri-implant diseases in Japanese adult dental patients

Prevalence and Possible Risk Factors of Peri-implantitis: A Concept Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About