Risk indicators associated with periimplant diseases: a retrospective cross-sectional study of Colombian patients with 1 to 18 years of follow-up
- Author:
Ana MaríaAna María ORTIZ-ECHEVERRIORTIZ-ECHEVERRI
1
;
Carolina GALLEGO-GONZÁLEZ
;
María Catalina CASTAÑO-GRANADA
;
Sergio Iván TOBÓN-ARROYAVE
Author Information
- Publication Type:Research Article
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science 2024;54(3):161-176
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:EN
-
Abstract:
Purpose:Peri-implant mucositis (PIM) and peri-implantitis (PI) are multicausal conditions with several risk factors contributing to their pathogenesis. In this study, we retrospectively investigated risk variables potentially associated with these peri-implant diseases (PIDs) over a follow-up period of 1 to 18 years.
Methods:The study sample consisted of 379 implants placed in 155 patients. Single-visit clinical and radiographic evaluations were employed to determine the presence or absence of PIDs. Parameters related to the patient, site, surgery, implant, and prosthetic restoration were documented. The relationships between risk variables and the occurrence of PIDs were individually examined and adjusted for confounders using multivariate binary logistic regression models.
Results:The prevalence rates of PIM and PI were 28.4% and 36.8% at the patient level and 33.5% and 24.5% at the implant level, respectively. Poor oral hygiene, active gingivitis/ periodontitis, preoperative alveolar ridge deficiency, early or delayed implant placement, implant length of 11.0 mm or less, and poor restoration quality were strong and independent risk indicators for both PIDs. Furthermore, a follow-up period of more than 5 years and a loading time of more than 4 years were important indicators for PI. Simultaneously, age and smoking status acted as modifiers of the effect of mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) widths of restoration on PI.
Conclusions:In this study population, oral hygiene, periodontal status, preoperative alveolar ridge status, implant placement protocol, implant length, and the quality of coronal restoration appear to be robust risk indicators for both PIM and PI. Additionally, the length of follow-up and functional loading time are robust indicators of PI. Furthermore, the potential modifying relationships of age and smoking status with the MD and BL widths of restoration may be crucial for the development of PI.
