4.0 Article

Risk indicators related to peri-implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL AND IMPLANT SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 266-276

出版社

KOREAN ACAD PERIODONTOLOGY
DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2016.46.4.266

关键词

Dental implants; Implant-supported dental prosthesis; Periodontal diseases; Peri-implantitis; Retrospective study; Risk factors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to retrospectively investigate the influence of potential risk indicators on the development of peri-implant disease. Methods: Overall, 103 patients referred for implant treatment from 2000 to 2012 were randomly enrolled. The study sample consisted of 421 conventional-length (>6 mm) non-turned titanium implants that were evaluated clinically and radiographically according to preestablished clinical and patient-related parameters by a single investigator. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis rank test and a logistic regression model were used for the statistical analysis of the recorded data at the implant level. Results: The diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis was made for 173 (41.1%) and 19 (4.5%) implants, respectively. Age (>= 65 years), patient adherence (professional hygiene recalls <2/year) and the presence of plaque were associated with higher peri-implant probing-depth values and bleeding-on-probing scores. The logistic regression analysis indicated that age (P=0.001), patient adherence (P=0.03), the absence of keratinized tissue (P=0.03), implants placed in pristine bone (P=0.04), and the presence of peri-implant soft-tissue recession (P=0.000) were strongly associated with the event of peri-implantitis. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, patients aged >= 65 years and non-adherent subjects were more prone to develop peri-implant disease. Therefore, early diagnosis and a systematic maintenance-care program are essential for maintaining peri-implant tissue health, especially in older patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据