12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence.

          Materials and methods

          Publications 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.

          Results

          Full‐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.

          Conclusion

          Biologic 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references117

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference.

          The primary function of a dental implant is to act as an abutment for a prosthetic device, similar to a natural tooth root and crown. Any success criteria, therefore, must include first and foremost support of a functional prosthesis. In addition, although clinical criteria for prosthetic success are beyond the scope of this article, patient satisfaction with the esthetic appearance of the implant restoration is necessary in clinical practice. The restoring dentist designs and fabricates a prosthesis similar to one supported by a tooth, and as such often evaluates and treats the dental implant similarly to a natural tooth. Yet, fundamental differences in the support system between these entities should be recognized. The purpose of this article is to use a few indices developed for natural teeth as an index that is specific for endosteal root-form implants. This article is also intended to update and upgrade what is purported to be implant success, implant survival, and implant failure. The Health Scale presented in this article was developed and accepted by the International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus Conference for Implant Success in Pisa, Italy, October 2007.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical research on peri-implant diseases: consensus report of Working Group 4.

            Two systematic reviews have evaluated the quality of research and reporting of observational studies investigating the prevalence of, the incidence of and the risk factors for peri-implant diseases and of experimental clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of preventive and therapeutic interventions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population: Prevalence of Peri-implantitis.

              Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory disease affecting soft and hard tissues surrounding dental implants. As the global number of individuals that undergo restorative therapy through dental implants increases, peri-implantitis is considered as a major and growing problem in dentistry. A randomly selected sample of 588 patients who all had received implant-supported therapy 9 y earlier was clinically and radiographically examined. Prevalence of peri-implantitis was assessed and risk indicators were identified by multilevel regression analysis. Forty-five percent of all patients presented with peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >0.5 mm). Moderate/severe peri-implantitis (bleeding on probing/suppuration and bone loss >2 mm) was diagnosed in 14.5%. Patients with periodontitis and with ≥4 implants, as well as implants of certain brands and prosthetic therapy delivered by general practitioners, exhibited higher odds ratios for moderate/severe peri-implantitis. Similarly, higher odds ratios were identified for implants installed in the mandible and with crown restoration margins positioned ≤1.5 mm from the crestal bone at baseline. It is suggested that peri-implantitis is a common condition and that several patient- and implant-related factors influence the risk for moderate/severe peri-implantitis (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01825772).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                hugo.debruyn@radboudumc.nl
                Journal
                Clin Oral Implants Res
                Clin Oral Implants Res
                10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0501
                CLR
                Clinical Oral Implants Research
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0905-7161
                1600-0501
                10 October 2018
                October 2018
                : 29
                : Suppl Suppl 18 , The 5 th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle ( doiID: 10.1111/clr.2018.29.issue-S18 )
                : 100-123
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department Periodontology & Oral Implantology Dental School, Faculty Medicine and Health Sciences Ghent University Belgium Ghent Belgium
                [ 2 ] Oral Health Research Group ORHE Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussels Belgium
                [ 3 ] Department of Educational Sciences EDWE‐LOCI Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences Vrije Universiteit Brussel Brussels Belgium
                [ 4 ] Section Implantology & Periodontology Department of Dentistry Radboudumc Nijmegen The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Hugo De Bruyn, Section Implantology & Periodontology, Department of Dentistry, Radboudumc, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands and Department Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University Belgium, De Pintelaan 185 P8, B‐9000 Ghent, Belgium.

                Email: hugo.debruyn@ 123456radboudumc.nl

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6728-7873
                Article
                CLR13264
                10.1111/clr.13264
                6220966
                30306697
                3e87cfa6-53b6-4a93-bb7a-f9b28147597c
                © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 08 March 2018
                : 02 April 2018
                : 11 April 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 6, Pages: 24, Words: 19065
                Categories
                Supplement Article
                The 5 th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
                Review Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                clr13264
                October 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.1 mode:remove_FC converted:07.11.2018

                bone loss,diagnosis,implant success,implant survival,peri‐implantitis,review

                Comments

                Comment on this article