Risk Factors for Peri-implantitis

Maney, Pooja; Schiavo, Julie; Mascarenhas, Faye; Dragonas, Panagiotis

doi:10.1007/s40496-020-00276-0

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 145 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the prognostic utility of these genetic configurations in recognizing people who are more likely to develop PI is still limited. 8 A recent study showed 1.9 to 2.47-fold more possibility for PI development in those with interleukin-1 polymorphisms 48 however, another investigation found no link between the two. 49 Polymorphism of another pro-inflammatory cytokine, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, was also reported to have five to eight times more risk for PI.…”

Section: Subject-level Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Periodontopathic microorganisms have been demonstrated in the biofilm associated with PI, but in a heterogeneous nature and with more complexity than periodontitis. 8 A higher incidence of Porphyromonas gingivalis and mainly Prevotella intermedius/nigrescens are reported in PI. Compared to healthy implant sites, PI is associated with non-culturable anaerobic gram-negative rods and asaccharolytic anaerobic gram-positive rods.…”

Section: Primary Etiological Factor—oral Biofilmmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Along with plaque retention, excess cement also acts as a foreign substance and thus makes cemented prostheses more susceptible to PI. 8 In a cross-sectional study, gram-negative bacteria were present in larger numbers around cement-retained rehabilitation compared to screw-retained ones. 73 The volume of residual cement is influenced by the emergence profile of a prosthesis.…”

Section: Implant-level Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…64 Platform switching was determined advantageous to peri-implant health when combined with a customized abutment and extraoral cementation of the restoration onto the abutment. 8 A recent clinical study also found that platform switching dramatically lowered the risk of PI. 27 Due to lack of evidence, the role of improper prosthetic design as a risk factor for PI is still inconclusive.…”

Section: Prosthetic Designmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The microgap at the implant-abutment interfaces may facilitate plaque deposition along with bacterial microleakage that can enhance the risk of peri-implant infections. 8 In a systematic analysis, Mishra et al evaluated the sealing ability of different implant-abutment connections. They reported that the internal hexagonal implants (mainly internal conical) were more efficient to prevent microleakage in both static and dynamic loading than any other implants.…”

Section: Implant-abutment Connectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Understanding the Risk of Peri-Implantitis

Das

Shenoy

Shetty

2023

Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although implant therapy has been identified as a successful and predictable treatment for partially and completely edentulous patients, complications and failures can occur. There are two main categories of complications that occur in implant therapy: biological and technical (mechanical). Peri-implantitis is considered as a biological complication that results in bone loss around implants and may lead to implant treatment failure. Peri-implantitis has become a topic of major interest in contemporary dentistry due to its higher prevalence. Even though the main etiologic agent is bacterial biofilm, a myriad of factors influences the initiation and progression of peri-implant disease. The knowledge of the impact of peri-implantitis on the outcome of treatment with oral implants as well as the identification of risk factors associated with this inflammatory condition is essential for the development of supportive maintenance programs and the establishment of prevention protocols. Thus, this article reviews the recent evidence on the factors that may predispose implants to peri-implantitis.

show abstract

Section: Subject-level Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Primary Etiological Factor—oral Biofilmmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Implant-level Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Prosthetic Designmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Implant-abutment Connectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Understanding the Risk of Peri-Implantitis

Das

Shenoy

Shetty

2023

Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Role of implant loading time in the prevention of marginal bone loss after implant-supported restorations: A targeted review

Krawiec¹,

Olchowy²,

Kubasiewicz−Ross³

et al. 2022

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implant-supported restoration of missing teeth is a recognized method of treatment that ensures a functional, esthetic and durable effect, along with patient satisfaction. However, the preferable time of dental implant loading is under debate. Currently, 3 protocols are used: immediate loading; early loading; and conventional (late) loading. Immediate loading provides benefits such as short treatment time, the elimination of the second surgery required for later loading protocols, the protection of the gingival papilla, an immediate esthetic effect, and high patient satisfaction. This review aimed to summarize the evidence on the impact of loading time on marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants, which is considered a useful measure of implantological treatment effects. A literature search was conducted based on the PubMed/MEDLINE database. The search focused on studies providing the MBL values by protocol. Out of the 1,366 hits received in the initial search, 10 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. At 12 months, the MBL range was 0.17-1.86 mm in patients undergoing the immediate protocol, 0.14-1.22 mm in patients undergoing the early protocol, and 0.44-0.91 mm in patients undergoing the late protocol. The studies were heterogeneous, but no significant differences in the occurrence of MBL were reported between the immediately and early loaded implants as compared with the conventionally loaded ones. Further studies are needed to determine other factors that might be related to the type of protocol, important for optimal patient treatment.

show abstract

Clinical Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivate Used in Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objectives: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the available evidence of using enamel matrix derivate in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched until August 2022 to identify relevant articles. The inclusion criteria consisted in human clinical studies that reported the use of enamel matrix derivate (EMD) in surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and for non-RCTs ROBINS-I tool. Results: Clinical studies included were published between 2012 and 2022 and consisted of two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for non-surgical therapy and two RCTs, three prospective cohort studies, and one retrospective case series in surgical therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patients’ characteristics and assessment of peri-implant therapy, statistical analysis could not be achieved. Conclusions: The use of EMD indicated a positive effect on both surgical and non-surgical therapy. However, the available literature is scarce, with low evidence in non-surgical approach and modest evidence in surgical approach using EMD. More RCTs with standardize protocols are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of using EMD in both therapies.

show abstract

Risk Factors for Peri-implantitis

Cited by 3 publications

References 145 publications

Understanding the Risk of Peri-Implantitis

Understanding the Risk of Peri-Implantitis

Role of implant loading time in the prevention of marginal bone loss after implant-supported restorations: A targeted review

Clinical Outcomes of Enamel Matrix Derivate Used in Surgical and Non-Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About