School of Dentistry and Oral Health, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Qld, Australia.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Mar;23(3):325-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02264.x. Epub 2011 Aug 5.
The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of implant treatment in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients (PHP), with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years.
Thirty treated periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and 30 PHP, with a total of 117 Straumann implants (PCP = 56, PHP = 61) were matched for age, gender, smoking and implant characteristics. The PCP group was further stratified with patients having at least one periodontal pocket ≥6 mm at follow-up examination allocated to a "residual periodontitis" (RP) group, while the remaining patients were assigned to a "no residual periodontitis" (NRP) group. These groups were compared with respect to probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and marginal bone loss.
The mean follow-up period in the PCP and PHP groups was 7.99 years (range 5.04-14.40) and 8.20 years (range 5.00-13.46) respectively. There was no difference in mean PPD between the PCP and PHP groups, but the prevalence of implants with PPD ≥5 mm + BOP was greater in the PCP group than in the PHP group, at both implant- (27% vs. 13%) and patient- (37% vs. 17%) level analyses. Mean implant PPD was significantly greater in the RP group (3.18 mm) than in both the NRP (2.67 mm) and PHP (2.81 mm) groups. Mean bone loss was also significantly greater in the RP group (0.68 mm) than in the NRP (0.23 mm) and PHP groups (0.26 mm). The prevalence of bone loss and PPD ≥5 mm + BOP at the implant level was significantly greater for the RP group compared with both the NRP and PHP groups.
Implants in PCP with residual pocketing at follow-up had increased PPD and bone loss compared with implants placed in PHP and PCP without residual pocketing. Hence, it is the maintenance of periodontal health rather than a previous history of periodontitis that is the critical determinant of increased risk of peri-implantitis, highlighting the importance of effective periodontal therapy and maintenance in patients with a history of periodontitis.
本回顾性研究旨在比较牙周状况受损患者(PCP)和牙周健康患者(PHP)接受种植治疗的临床效果,随访时间至少为 5 年。
共纳入 30 名牙周状况受损患者(PCP)和 30 名牙周健康患者(PHP),他们共植入了 117 颗 Straumann 种植体(PCP=56 颗,PHP=61 颗)。根据年龄、性别、吸烟情况和种植体特征对 PCP 组和 PHP 组进行匹配。PCP 组进一步根据随访检查中至少有一个牙周袋≥6mm 的患者分为“残余牙周炎”(RP)组,其余患者分为“无残余牙周炎”(NRP)组。比较各组的探诊袋深度(PPD)、探诊出血(BOP)和边缘骨丧失。
PCP 组和 PHP 组的平均随访时间分别为 7.99 年(范围 5.04-14.40)和 8.20 年(范围 5.00-13.46)。PCP 组和 PHP 组的平均 PPD 无差异,但 PCP 组的种植体 PPD≥5mm+BOP 发生率高于 PHP 组,在种植体(27%比 13%)和患者(37%比 17%)水平分析中均如此。RP 组的平均种植体 PPD(3.18mm)显著大于 NRP 组(2.67mm)和 PHP 组(2.81mm)。RP 组的平均骨丧失也显著大于 NRP 组(0.68mm)和 PHP 组(0.26mm)。RP 组的种植体水平的骨丧失和 PPD≥5mm+BOP 发生率明显高于 NRP 组和 PHP 组。
与无残余牙周袋的 PCP 组和 PHP 组相比,随访时仍有牙周袋的 PCP 组的种植体 PPD 和骨丧失增加。因此,牙周炎病史并不是导致种植体周围炎风险增加的关键因素,而是牙周健康的维持。这突出了对牙周炎病史患者进行有效牙周治疗和维护的重要性。