Risk indicators related to peri-implant disease: an observational retrospective cohort study.
10.5051/jpis.2016.46.4.266
- Author:
Pier Paolo POLI
1
;
Mario BERETTA
;
Giovanni Battista GROSSI
;
Carlo MAIORANA
Author Information
1. Implant Center for Edentulism and Jawbone Atrophies, Maxillofacial Surgery and Odontostomatology Unit, IRCCS Cà Granda Foundation Maggiore Policlinico Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. pierpaolo.poli@unimi.it
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Dental implants;
Implant-supported dental prosthesis;
Periodontal diseases;
Peri-implantitis;
Retrospective study;
Risk factors
- MeSH:
Cohort Studies*;
Dental Implants;
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported;
Diagnosis;
Early Diagnosis;
Humans;
Hygiene;
Logistic Models;
Mucositis;
Patient Compliance;
Peri-Implantitis;
Periodontal Diseases;
Research Personnel;
Retrospective Studies*;
Risk Factors;
Titanium
- From:Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science
2016;46(4):266-276
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
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 pre-established 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.
