Division of Periodontics, Section of Oral, Diagnostic and Rehabilitation Sciences, Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, New York City, New York.
Center for Bioinformatics and Data Analytics in Oral Health, Columbia University College of Dental Medicine, New York City, New York.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Apr;30(4):306-314. doi: 10.1111/clr.13416. Epub 2019 Mar 10.
We assessed peri-implantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and associated risk factors by analyzing electronic oral health records (EHRs) in an educational institution.
We used a validated reference cohort comprising all patients receiving dental implants over a 3.5-year period (2,127 patients and 6,129 implants). Electronic oral health records of a random 10% subset were examined for an additional follow-up of ≥2.5 years to assess the presence of radiographic bone loss, defined as >2 mm longitudinal increase in the distance between the implant shoulder and the supporting peri-implant bone level (PBL) between time of placement and follow-up. "Intact" implants had no or ≤2 mm PBL increase from baseline. Electronic oral health record notes were reviewed to corroborate a definitive peri-implantitis diagnosis at implants with progressive bone loss. A nested case-control analysis of peri-implantitis-affected implants randomly matched by age with "intact" implants from peri-implantitis-free individuals identified putative risk factors.
The prevalence of peri-implantitis over an average follow-up of 2 years was 34% on the patient level and 21% on the implant level. Corresponding incidence rates were 0.16 and 0.10 per patient-year and implant-year, respectively. Multiple conditional logistic regression identified ill-fitting fixed prosthesis (OR = 5.9; 95% CI: 1.6-21.1), cement-retained prosthesis (OR = 4.5; 2.1-9.5), and radiographic evidence of periodontitis (OR = 3.6; 1.7-7.6) as statistically associated with peri-implantitis. Implant location in the mandible (OR = 0.02; 0.003-0.2) and use of antibiotics in conjunction with implant surgery (OR = 0.19; 0.05-0.7) emerged as protective exposures.
Approximately 1/3 of the patients and 1/5 of all implants experienced peri-implantitis. Ill-fitting/ill-designed fixed and cement-retained restorations, and history of periodontitis emerged as the principal risk factors for peri-implantitis.
我们通过分析一所教育机构的电子口腔健康记录(EHR)来评估种植体周围炎的患病率、发生率和相关的危险因素。
我们使用了一个经过验证的参考队列,该队列包含了在 3.5 年内接受牙种植体治疗的所有患者(2127 名患者和 6129 个种植体)。对随机抽取的 10%的亚组的电子口腔健康记录进行了额外的随访≥2.5 年,以评估是否存在影像学骨丧失,定义为种植体肩部和支持种植体周围骨水平(PBL)之间的距离在种植体放置和随访期间纵向增加>2 毫米。“完整”的种植体在基线时没有或只有≤2 毫米的 PBL 增加。电子口腔健康记录中的记录被审查,以证实在有进行性骨丧失的种植体上存在明确的种植体周围炎诊断。通过对年龄与无种植体周围炎的个体的“完整”种植体相匹配的种植体周围炎受累种植体进行嵌套病例对照分析,确定了潜在的危险因素。
在平均 2 年的随访中,患者水平的种植体周围炎患病率为 34%,种植体水平的患病率为 21%。相应的发病率分别为每患者年和每种植体年 0.16 和 0.10。多元条件逻辑回归确定了不合适的固定修复体(OR=5.9;95%CI:1.6-21.1)、粘结固定修复体(OR=4.5;2.1-9.5)和影像学牙周炎证据(OR=3.6;1.7-7.6)与种植体周围炎有统计学关联。下颌骨的种植体位置(OR=0.02;0.003-0.2)和种植体手术时使用抗生素(OR=0.19;0.05-0.7)则是保护性暴露因素。
大约 1/3的患者和 1/5的种植体经历了种植体周围炎。不合适/设计不当的固定和粘结固定修复体以及牙周炎病史是种植体周围炎的主要危险因素。