Seki Keisuke, Nakabayashi Shinya, Tanabe Naoki, Kamimoto Atsushi, Hagiwara Yoshiyuki
Implant Dentistry, Nihon University School of Dentistry Dental Hospital, Tokyo, 101-8310, Japan.
Department of Comprehensive Dentistry and Clinical Education, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8310, Japan.
Int J Implant Dent. 2017 Oct 30;3(1):45. doi: 10.1186/s40729-017-0108-0.
The pathophysiology and pathology of peri-implantitis remain unclear; however, its similarity to periodontitis has been described. The evaluation of peri-implant tissue and the diagnostic criteria of peri-implant disease are not currently standardized as they are for periodontitis. In this study, we evaluated clinical parameters during the implant maintenance period to determine significant correlations between these parameters.
We examined 55 implant patients at the time of maintenance visits between April and September 2016 and classified patients into a healthy group (H) and a history-of-periodontitis group (HP). For each implant, we evaluated the modified plaque index, probing pocket depth, and bleeding on probing as clinical parameters. Statistical analyses were performed with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient.
A total of 130 implants were assessed. The mean time since implant placement was 6 years and 6 months. The prevalence of implant-based peri-implantitis was 10.8% of all the implants. All cases of implant-based peri-implantitis came from the HP group, and many were present in patients with a history of severe periodontitis. The probing pocket depth around the implant was significantly greater in the HP group than in the H group. We found weak positive correlations between the probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing (r = 0.401, p < 0.05) in the H group and between the probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing (r = 0.241, p < 0.05) and the modified plaque index (r = 0.228, p < 0.05) in the HP group.
Our findings suggest that probing pocket depth and bleeding on probing as clinical parameters are important indicators for the diagnosis of peri-implant disease during the maintenance period among healthy and history-of-periodontitis groups.
种植体周围炎的病理生理学和病理学仍不明确;然而,其与牙周炎的相似性已被描述。目前,种植体周围组织的评估和种植体疾病的诊断标准不像牙周炎那样标准化。在本研究中,我们评估了种植体维护期的临床参数,以确定这些参数之间的显著相关性。
我们在2016年4月至9月的维护访视时检查了55名种植体患者,并将患者分为健康组(H)和有牙周炎病史组(HP)。对于每颗种植体,我们评估改良菌斑指数、探诊袋深度和探诊出血作为临床参数。采用Spearman等级相关系数进行统计分析。
共评估了130颗种植体。种植体植入后的平均时间为6年6个月。基于种植体的种植体周围炎的患病率为所有种植体的10.8%。所有基于种植体的种植体周围炎病例均来自HP组,且许多病例出现在有严重牙周炎病史的患者中。HP组种植体周围的探诊袋深度明显大于H组。我们发现,H组中探诊袋深度与探诊出血之间存在弱正相关(r = 0.401,p < 0.05),HP组中探诊袋深度与探诊出血之间存在弱正相关(r = 0.241,p < 0.05)以及与改良菌斑指数之间存在弱正相关(r = 0.228,p < 0.05)。
我们的研究结果表明,作为临床参数的探诊袋深度和探诊出血是健康组和有牙周炎病史组在维护期诊断种植体周围疾病的重要指标。