We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
Quintessence International
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Quintessence Int 45 (2014), No. 10     26. Sep. 2014
Quintessence Int 45 (2014), No. 10  (26.09.2014)

Page 861-868, doi:10.3290/j.qi.a32566, PubMed:25126637


Prevalence of peri-implantitis in patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses
Schuldt Filho, Guenther / Dalago, Haline Renata / Souza, João Gustavo Oliveira de / Stanley, Kyle / Jovanovic, Sascha / Bianchini, Marco Aurélio
Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate periimplantitis prevalence in patients using implant-supported fixed prostheses that did not have any routine maintenance care.
Method and Materials: A total of 161 implants (27 patients) were evaluated in patients using implant-supported fixed prostheses. Collected data included information related to patient general health and local factors such as characteristics of implants, time in function, type of loading, positioning, Modified Bleeding Index, bacterial plaque, bleeding on probing (BOP), marginal recession, probing depth (PD), keratinized mucosa, and radiographic bone loss (BL). Factors related to the prostheses were also evaluated. The exclusion criteria were patients that have had any follow-up visit for plaque control of the prosthesis and/or the implants.
Results: From a total of 161 implants, 116 (72%) presented without peri-implantitis (PD > 4 mm + BOP + BL > 2 mm) while 45 (28%) had some sign of the disease. Implants placed in the maxilla were 2.98 times more likely to develop the disease (P < .05). Moreover, patients aged ≤ 60 years old were 3.24 times more likely to develop peri-implantitis (P < .05). Another analysis with statistical relevance (P < .05) was that implants with less than 3 mm interimplant distance were three times more likely to have peri-implantitis. There was no statistical relevance considering other analyses.
Conclusion: It can be concluded that patients aged ≤ 60 years have a greater chance of presenting periimplantitis, as well as for implants positioned in the maxilla and those placed with an interimplant distance < 3 mm.

Keywords: fixed prostheses, local factors, marginal bone loss, peri-implantitis, prevalence