Department Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University Belgium, Ghent, Belgium.
Oral Health Research Group ORHE, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018 Oct;29 Suppl 18(Suppl Suppl 18):100-123. doi: 10.1111/clr.13264.
The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri-implantitis prevalence.
Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri-implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri-implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow-up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm.
Full-text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%-100%) and the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = -0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow-up time, and reported prevalence of peri-implantitis.
Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow-up. Case definition for peri-implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.
本综述的目的是评估常用的生物学诊断参数是否与种植体的存活率和种植体周围炎的发生率相关。
通过美国国家医学图书馆的 Pubmed 数据库进行电子检索，选择了 2011 年至 2017 年发表的文献。选择了具有至少 5 年平均随访时间的前瞻性和回顾性研究，并报告了种植体周围炎的发生率、平均骨丧失量和标准差。计算了报告的种植体周围炎发生率与报告的种植体存活率、平均随访时间、平均骨丧失量、平均探诊深度和平均探诊出血之间的相关性。使用平均骨丧失量和标准差来估计骨丧失量超过 1、2 和 3mm 的种植体比例。
对从 4173 篇文献中筛选出的 255 篇全文进行了分析，其中 41 篇符合所有纳入标准。总体加权存活率为 96.9%（89.9%-100%），基于 15 种不同的定义，报告的种植体周围炎发生率在 0%至 39.7%之间。基于 8182 个种植体，总体加权平均骨丧失量为 1.1mm，平均加载时间为 5 至 20 年。未发现平均骨丧失量与报告的种植体周围炎发生率之间存在相关性。估计骨丧失量超过 2mm 的种植体的发生率为 23%。总体加权平均探诊深度为 3.3mm，加权平均出血为 52.2%。仅发现存活率与功能时间之间存在弱相关性（r=-0.49）。探诊深度或出血与平均骨丧失量、平均随访时间和报告的种植体周围炎发生率之间无相关性。
生物学参数探诊深度和探诊出血与平均骨丧失量无关，而与随访时间无关。种植体周围炎的病例定义在研究之间差异显著，表明文献中尚未就基于特定骨丧失阈值的明确定义达成一致。
