OBJECTIVETo compare the incidence of technical complications of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Chinese patients with a history of moderate or severe periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients(PHP) and analyze the effects of interproximal papillae patterns on food impaction and efficacy of plaque control.

METHODSA total of 103 partially edentulous patients treated with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between December 2009 and December 2012 for a minimum 1-year follow-up period were recruited from Department of Periodontology, Peking University, School and Hospital of Stomatology. Based on the initial periodontal examination, the participants were divided into three groups: 30 PHP, 36 moderate periodontally compromised patients(mPCP) and 37 severe periodontally compromised patients(sPCP). Implant survival/loss, technical complications, plaque index, papilla index, food impaction and degree of proximal contact tightness of each patient were assessed around the implants at follow-up. According to the implant papilla index, the implants were divided into two groups: the "filling" group with the mesial and distal aspects with papilla index=3 and the "no filling" group with at least one aspect with papilla index<3. Data on implant survival, technical complications were analyzed. Comparisons of the incidence of technical complications were performed between the patients with different periodontal conditions with chi-square or Fisher's exact test. The influences of the interproximal papillae loss on food impaction and efficacy of plaque control were estimated with chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTSThe total implant survival rate was 100%(162/162) for all three groups. Technical complications were as following: veneer fractures(1.9%, 3/162), abutment screw loosening(1.9%, 3/162), prosthetic screw loosening(3.1%, 5/162) and decementation(3.1%, 5/162) in all subjects. No implant/screw fracture was noted. The incidence of technical complications in sPCP, mPCP and PHP did not yield statistically significant differences(P>0.05). The proportion of the implant with the mesial and distal papilla index=3 in the sPCP was less than that in the PHP and mPCP. The interproximal papillae loss did not appear to affect the food impaction and the plaque index in all three groups(P>0.05). However, for the PHP, the accumulation of plaque at buccal aspect was more in the "no filling" group compared with the "filling" group (implant plaque index[M(Q)]: 1[1] vs 0[0]), and for the sPCP, the accumulation of plaque at lingual aspect was more in the "filling" group compared with the "no filling" group(implant plaque index[M(Q)]: 1[1] vs 0[1], (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONSThe patients with a history of severe periodontitis did not exhibit more technical problems compared with the periodontally healthy patients. The interproximal papillae loss did not show a negative impact on the plaque control and food impaction. However, for the sPCP, changing the morphology and the position of the interproximal contact point to reduce the interdental black triangle may lead to accumulation of plaque at lingual aspect. More attention should be placed on the morphology design of prosthesis, but not the papillae filling up the interproximal space.