4.0 Article

Peri-Implantitis and Peri-Implant Mucositis Case Definitions in Dental Research: A Systematic Assessment

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY
Volume 45, Issue 2, Pages 127-131

Publisher

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00097

Keywords

peri-implant/classification; peri-implant/diagnosis; pari-implant/epidemiology; risk assessment/methods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this review was to determine the most common pen-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis case definitions used worldwide in the implant dentistry literature. A systematic assessment of peri-implant disease classification was conducted using all publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar between 1994 and November 2017. Screening of eligible studies and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by 2 reviewers. The search protocol identified 3049 unique articles, of which 2784 were excluded based on title and abstract. In total, 265 full texts were screened, 106 of which met the eligibility criteria. Of these, 41 defined pen-implant mucositis. Eight (19.6%) used bleeding on probing (BOP) only; 8 (19.6.7%) used a combination of probing depth (PD), BOP, and radiograph; and 5 (12.3%) used PD and BOP. Cases with crestal bone loss of <= 2 mm in the first year and <= 0.2 mm in each subsequent year were considered as pen-implant mucositis. Ninety-three articles defined peri-implantitis; 28 (30.1%) used a combination of PD with suppuration, BOP, and radiograph, followed by 25 (26.9%) using a combination of PD, BOP, and radiograph. The main criteria in most of the studies were considered to be BOP, PD, and radiograph. Cases of crestal bone loss of >= 2 mm and PD >= 3 mm are considered peri-implantitis. Different pen-implant disease case definitions may affect disease prevalence and treatment strategies. We need to standardize case definitions to avoid discrepancies in case diagnosis and prognosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available