What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Díaz, Pablo; Gonzalo, Esther; Villagra, Luis J. Gil; Miegimolle, Barbara; Suárez-García, María Jesús

doi:10.1186/s12903-022-02493-8

Cited by 42 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 87 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Peri‐implantitis is now defined as a pathological condition that occurs in tissues around dental implants and is characterized by inflammation in the peri‐implant mucosa and progressive loss of supporting bone (Figure 1). 6 In a recent systematic review by Diaz and Gonzalo et al, 7 57 studies were included for meta‐analysis and the prevalence of peri‐implantitis was about 19.53% at the patient‐level and 12.53% at the implant‐level but the result remains highly variable depending on the case definition. The authors concluded for future studies that are essential to have standardized measurement and diagnostic criteria to access the true prevalence.…”

Section: Diagnosis and Etiology Of Peri‐implant Diseases And Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) is a tool proposed by Heitz-Mayfield in 2020 130 for the prevention of peri-implant disease. The IDRA involves the assessment of eight parameters, including (1) history of periodontitis, (2) percentage of sites with bleeding on probing, (3) prevalence of probing depths more than 5 mm, (4) periodontal bone loss in relation to patient's age, (5) periodontitis susceptibility, (6) supportive periodontal therapy, (7) proximity of restorative margin to bone crest, and (8) implant prosthesis related factors. Scores for each parameter can be calculated to identify a patient's individual risk of developing peri-implantitis.…”

Section: Preventive Measures For Peri-implant Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prevention and management of peri‐implant disease

Sun

Chen

Gallucci

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background As more patients choose dental implants as their primary treatment option to restore edentulous ridges or to replace compromised dentition, preventive strategies for peri‐implant diseases and complications have become an important topic. Purpose The aim of the review article is to summarize the current available evidence on the potential risk factors/indicators for peri‐implant disease development and then focus on the preventive strategies for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Materials and Methods After reviewing the diagnostic criteria and the etiology of peri‐implant diseases and conditions, evidence on the possible associated risk factors/indicators for peri‐implant diseases were searched and identified. Recent studies were also surveyed to explore the preventive measures for peri‐implant diseases. Results The possible associated risk factors of peri‐implant diseases can be divided into the following categories: patient‐specific factors, implant‐specific factors, and long‐term factors. Patient‐specific factors such as history of periodontitis and smoking have been conclusively associated with peri‐implant diseases, whereas findings on others, such as diabetes and genetic factors, remain inconclusive. It has been suggested that both implant‐specific factors, such as implant position, soft tissue characteristics, and the type of connection used, and long‐term factors, such as poor plaque control and a lack of maintenance program, have a strong impact on maintaining the health of a dental implant. Assessment tool for evaluating the risk factors can be a potential preventive measure for peri‐implant disease prediction, and it is needed to be properly validated. Conclusion Proper maintenance program for early intervention to control peri‐implant diseases at the initial stage and pretreatment assessment of the potential risk factors is the best strategy to prevent implant diseases.

show abstract

Section: Diagnosis and Etiology Of Peri‐implant Diseases And Conditionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preventive Measures For Peri-implant Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevention and management of peri‐implant disease

Sun

Chen

Gallucci

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peri-implantitis (PI) is defined as an inflammatory lesion in the tissues surrounding the implant with progressing of bone loss beyond the expected physiologic bone remodeling. 1,2 PI is the most common complication in implant dentistry, 3,4 affecting around 20% of patients [5][6][7] and 13% of implants, 6,7 with study results ranging widely.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Ravidà

Samal

Qazi

et al. 2023

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Due to the clinical challenges involved in successfully treating peri-implantitis, it is imperative to identify patient-and implant-level risk factors for its prevention. The main goal of this retrospective longitudinal radiographic and clinical study was to investigate whether interproximal radiographic implant thread exposure after physiological bone remodeling may be a risk factor for peri-implantitis. The secondary goal was to evaluate several other potential risk indicators.Methods: Of 4325 active dental school patients having implants placed, 165 partially edentulous adults (77 men, 88 women) aged 30-91 with ≥2 years of follow-up upon implant restoration were included. Implants with ≥1 interproximal thread exposed (no bone-to-implant contact) (n = 98, 35%) constituted the test group and those without exposed threads (n = 182, 65%) the control group. Descriptive, binary, and multivariate regression analyses were evaluated for goodness of fit. Wald tests were used to evaluate for significance set at 0.05. Results:Of the 280 implants (98 test, 182 control), 8 (2.9%) failed over a mean follow-up period of 7.67 (±2.63) years, and 27 implants (19 test, 8 control) developed peri-implantitis, with the exposed group having eight-fold (7.82 times) adjusted greater odds than the non-exposed. The risk increased four-fold (3.77 times) with each thread exposed. No other patient-or implant-related potentially confounding risk factors were identified. Conclusions: Exposed interproximal implant threads after physiologic bone remodeling may be an independent risk indicator for incident peri-implantitis. Hence, clinicians should closely monitor patients with implant threads that have no bone-to-implant contact for incident peri-implantitis.

show abstract

“…Dental implants are the preferred fixed oral rehabilitation for replacing lost teeth. With their increasing popularity, peri-implant tissue diseases have also increased, with an estimated prevalence of 19.5% [ 1 ]. Peri-implantitis is a condition of the tissues surrounding dental implants characterised by an inflammatory response of the peri-implant connective tissue caused by dysbiotic plaque.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implant Surface Decontamination and Surface Change of an Electrolytic Method versus Mechanical Approaches: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Assunção

Botelho

Machado

et al. 2023

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental implants are the preferred fixed oral rehabilitation for replacing lost teeth. When peri-implant tissues become inflamed, the removal of plaque accumulating around the implant becomes imperative. Recently, several new strategies have been developed for this purpose, with electrolytic decontamination showing increased potential compared to traditional mechanical strategies. In this in vitro pilot study, we compare the efficacy of an electrolytic decontaminant (Galvosurge®) with an erythritol jet system (PerioFlow®) and two titanium brushes (R-Brush™ and i-Brush™) in removing Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1 biofilms from implants. Changes in the implant surface after each approach were also evaluated. Twenty titanium SLA implants were inoculated with P. aeruginosa and then randomly assigned to each treatment group. After treatment, decontamination efficacy was assessed by quantifying colony-forming units (log10 CFU/cm2) from each implant surface. Scanning electron microscopy was used to analyse changes in the implant surface. With the exception of R-Brush, all treatment strategies were similarly effective in removing P. aeruginosa from implants. Major surface changes were observed only in implants treated with titanium brushes. In conclusion, this pilot study suggests that electrolytic decontamination, erythritol-chlorhexidine particle jet system and i-Brush™ brushing have similar performance in removing P. aeruginosa biofilm from dental implants. Further studies are needed to evaluate the removal of more complex biofilms. Titanium brushes caused significant changes to the implant surface, the effects of which need to be evaluated.

show abstract

What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 42 publications

References 87 publications

Prevention and management of peri‐implant disease

Prevention and management of peri‐implant disease

Interproximal implant thread exposure after initial bone remodeling as a risk indicator for peri‐implantitis

Dental Implant Surface Decontamination and Surface Change of an Electrolytic Method versus Mechanical Approaches: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About