Background: The aim of this cross-sectional study was (1) to determine the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and (2) to reveal the risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases. The second point was to investigate the role of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant health.
Materials And Methods: Three hundred and eighty-two subjects who were treated with 1415 dental implants between 2011-2017 were clinically evaluated. Patients' medical and dental history, as well as implant details, were recorded. Peri-implant examination included probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and keratinized tissue width. Furthermore, the patient (sex, age, and smoking) and implant/prosthesis-related factors (surface characteristic, time in function, design of prosthesis etc.) were evaluated. Implants were classified into three groups: healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Uni- and multi-variate regression analyses were utilized for statistics.
Results: 41.1% (n = 157) and 36.9% (n = 84) of patients had mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively. 53.6% (n = 758) of implants (95%CI 80.2-90.4) had mucositis, and 21.7% (n = 307) had peri-implantitis. Patients with a maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.576), having periodontitis (OR = 3.342) and higher PI (OR = 3.046) had significant associations with the development of peri-implant mucositis. Significant ORs were determined for peri-implantitis with patients having maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.048), having number of implants ≥ 4 (OR = 2.103), diagnosed with periodontitis (OR = 3.295), and higher PI (OR = 7.055). Keratinized tissue width < 2 mm (ORs = 5389/8.013), PPD (ORs = 1.570/8.338), PI (ORs = 6.726/5.205), and BoP (ORs = 3.645/4.353) independent variables were significantly associated with both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at implant level, respectively.
Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be high in Turkish population. Furthermore, increased risk for peri-implantitis was identified in patients having maintenance < 2/year, presence of periodontitis, poor plaque control, and having number of implants ≥ 4. Less keratinized tissue (< 2 mm), PPD, and BoP were also risk indicators for peri-implantitis development.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7237556 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00215-9 | DOI Listing |
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent
September 2024
Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Background: Peri-implant diseases, such as peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, are inflammatory conditions caused by biofilms that can lead to the loss of surrounding soft tissues and bone. The most effective treatment involves non-surgical mechanical debridement to remove plaque, but other treatment modalities have shown limited success. This study investigated the anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects of atorvastatin (ATV) gel as an additional treatment for peri-implant mucositis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Indian Prosthodont Soc
January 2025
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, SGT University, Gurugram, Haryana, India.
Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the antimicrobial effects of an 810-nanometer diode laser, utilizing or not utilizing toluidine blue as a photosensitizer, in the management of peri-implant mucositis.
Settings And Design: The present study was carried out in 30 implant sites in 15 patients with peri-implant mucositis with a specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. 15 sites were treated utilizing a diode laser (control group) and 15 with photodynamic therapy (test group) in a split-mouth format.
Dent J (Basel)
December 2024
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, Via S. Allende, 84081 Salerno, Italy.
This systematic review evaluated concomitant trends in microbial (total biofilm load and pre-dominant pathogens' counts) and clinical, radiographic, and crevicular variations following (any) peri-implantitis treatment in partially vs. totally edentulous, systemically healthy, non-smoking adults and compared them to peri-implant mucositis treated sites. The study protocol, compliant with the PRISMA statement, was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024514521).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Long Term Eff Med Implants
December 2024
Universidad Europea de Madrid, Master of Oral Surgery and Advanced Implantology, Madrid, Spain, 28045.
The objective of the study was to compare the surgical vs. the nonsurgical techniques in the treatment of peri-implant diseases and to obtain a comprehensive analysis of the effects on BOP/probing depths when applying either the surgical technique vs. a nonsurgical technique.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur J Dent
December 2024
Department of Periodontology and Implant Biology, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the active matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP-8) quantitative chairside point-of-care (PoC) lateral flow immunotest for peri-implant diseases, and it sought to correlate aMMP-8 levels with clinical parameters to determine its effectiveness as a biomarker for peri-implantitis.
Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Department of Periodontology and Implant Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Participants included systemically healthy individuals with at least one implant loaded for more than 1 year, who had not received periodontal treatment or antibiotics in the preceding 6 months.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!