Cosgarea Raluca, Sculean Anton, Shibli Jamil Avad, Salvi Giovanni Edoardo
University Iuliu Hatieganu, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
University of Bern, School of Dental Medicine, Department of Periodontology, Bern, Switzerland.
Braz Oral Res. 2019 Sep 30;33(suppl 1):e063. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0063. eCollection 2019.
The objective of this paper was to evaluate the current evidence reporting on the prevalence of peri-implantitis and to determine the influencing factors. An electronic search for articles published until February 2019 reporting on the prevalence of peri-implantitis was performed in MEDLINE. Included criteria were published in international peer-reviewed journals, written in English language, reported on the prevalence of peri-implantitis, included implants with a minimum follow-up of one year after functional loading and used a clear definition for peri-implantitis and/or peri-implant mucositis with a clear cutoff for bone level changes according to the case definitions of Sanz and Chapple and Berglundh et al. 2018. Included papers were anaylized for factors affecting the reported prevalences for peri-implantitis. Twenty-five papers were included in the present review and a wide range for the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis was seen. Case definitions for peri-implantitis with various thresholds for bone loss together with the type of reporting on patient- or implant-level were the most significant factors that lead to a large variety of the occurrence of the disease. Additionally, follow-up time and the evaluation in a certain "convenience" population may have influenced the prevalence values. In conclusion, it can be stated that a wide range for reporting the prevalence of peri-implantitis can be found and no real estimation of the global burden of the disease can be made. Applying accurate case definitions for peri-implantitis is the most important factor for reporting the prevalence and should be strictly followed in future reports.
本文的目的是评估目前关于种植体周围炎患病率的证据报告，并确定影响因素。在MEDLINE上对截至2019年2月发表的关于种植体周围炎患病率的文章进行了电子检索。纳入标准为发表在国际同行评审期刊上、用英语撰写、报告种植体周围炎患病率、包括功能加载后至少随访一年的种植体，并根据Sanz和Chapple以及Berglundh等人2018年的病例定义对种植体周围炎和/或种植体周围黏膜炎有明确的定义以及骨水平变化的明确临界值。对纳入的论文分析了影响报告的种植体周围炎患病率的因素。本综述纳入了25篇论文，观察到种植体周围炎报告患病率的范围很广。种植体周围炎的病例定义以及不同的骨丢失阈值，连同患者或种植体水平的报告类型，是导致该疾病发生率差异很大的最重要因素。此外，随访时间以及在特定“便利”人群中的评估可能影响了患病率值。总之，可以说在报告种植体周围炎患病率方面存在广泛差异，无法对该疾病的全球负担进行实际估计。应用准确的种植体周围炎病例定义是报告患病率的最重要因素，未来的报告应严格遵循。
