IADR Abstract Archives
Influence of Periodontal Maintenance and Periodontitis Susceptibility on Implant Success
Objectives: The primary objective was to investigate the effect of periodontal maintenance versus undefined follow-ups after implant therapy on the
prevalence and incidence of peri-implant diseases.
Methods: The subjects recruited were patients who had undergone dental implants therapy in the periodontics unit in the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) from 2005 to 2012. 200 patients were recruited for peri-implant complication analysis of which 100 patients had long-term periodontal maintenance (test group) and the other 100 patients were on undefined maintenance (control group). Furthermore, subjects were analyzed based on history of periodontitis prior to implant placement. Full mouth bleeding score (FMBS), periodontal probing depth (PPD), peri-implant probing depth (PiPD) were evaluated clinically at time of prostheses issue (T0) and re-examination (T2). Peri-implant bone level changes were analyzed radiographically by comparing peri-implant bone level at T0 and T2.
Results: The mean follow-up time was 6.75 years (ranged 2.5 years to 14.7 years). For 290 implants inserted, six were lost, translating into a cumulative
survival rate of 97.93%. In overall, 74.5% of the patients and 71.1% of the implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis. 30.0% of the patients and 23.2% of the implants were diagnosed with level 1 peri-implantitis (PiPD≥5mm with BOP). When the threshold was raised to PiPD≥6mm with BOP (level 2 periimplantitis), the corresponding incidence was 10.5% of patients and 7.7% of implants. 6% of test group patients and 15% of control group patients had level 2 periimplantitis (p=0.063); At implant level, 4% of test group implants and 11.9% of control group implants were diagnosed with level 2 peri-implantitis (p=0.0144). Only one implant in the test group had peri-implant bone loss≥2mm while thirteen implants in the control group had bone loss≥2mm (p<0.0001). Patients with treated periodontitis and implants with uncleansible prostheses had a significantly higher incidence of peri-implantitis.
Conclusions: Periodontal maintenance was effective in lowering incidence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant bone loss. Periodontally susceptible patients without periodontal maintenance after implant placement were at high risk of developing peri-implant soft tissue complications.
prevalence and incidence of peri-implant diseases.
Methods: The subjects recruited were patients who had undergone dental implants therapy in the periodontics unit in the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) from 2005 to 2012. 200 patients were recruited for peri-implant complication analysis of which 100 patients had long-term periodontal maintenance (test group) and the other 100 patients were on undefined maintenance (control group). Furthermore, subjects were analyzed based on history of periodontitis prior to implant placement. Full mouth bleeding score (FMBS), periodontal probing depth (PPD), peri-implant probing depth (PiPD) were evaluated clinically at time of prostheses issue (T0) and re-examination (T2). Peri-implant bone level changes were analyzed radiographically by comparing peri-implant bone level at T0 and T2.
Results: The mean follow-up time was 6.75 years (ranged 2.5 years to 14.7 years). For 290 implants inserted, six were lost, translating into a cumulative
survival rate of 97.93%. In overall, 74.5% of the patients and 71.1% of the implants were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis. 30.0% of the patients and 23.2% of the implants were diagnosed with level 1 peri-implantitis (PiPD≥5mm with BOP). When the threshold was raised to PiPD≥6mm with BOP (level 2 periimplantitis), the corresponding incidence was 10.5% of patients and 7.7% of implants. 6% of test group patients and 15% of control group patients had level 2 periimplantitis (p=0.063); At implant level, 4% of test group implants and 11.9% of control group implants were diagnosed with level 2 peri-implantitis (p=0.0144). Only one implant in the test group had peri-implant bone loss≥2mm while thirteen implants in the control group had bone loss≥2mm (p<0.0001). Patients with treated periodontitis and implants with uncleansible prostheses had a significantly higher incidence of peri-implantitis.
Conclusions: Periodontal maintenance was effective in lowering incidence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant bone loss. Periodontally susceptible patients without periodontal maintenance after implant placement were at high risk of developing peri-implant soft tissue complications.
3140664_File000001.jpg
3140664_File000002.jpg
3140664_File000000.jpg