Self-administered proximal implant-supported hygiene measures and the association to peri-implant conditions.

BACKGROUND

Dental plaque biofilm is considered to be the underlying cause of peri-implant diseases. Moreover, it has been corroborated recently the association between the presence of these diseases and deficiently designed implant-supported prostheses. In this regard, professional-administered oral hygiene measures have been suggested to play a dominant role in prevention.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in dental implant patients according to accessibility for self-performed oral hygiene using a 0.5 mm interproximal brush. Periodontal and peri-implant status were assessed based on clinical and radiographic variables to determine the prevalence of peri-implant diseases. In addition, the participants completed a questionnaire on the efficiency and accessibility for self-performed proximal hygiene. Associations of descriptive data were analyzed using the chi-squared test and Mann-Whitney U-test. Correlations of the variables with the primary outcome (accessibility) were assessed by means of generalized estimation equations and multilevel logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Based on an a priori power calculation, a total of 50 patients (171 implants) were consecutively recruited. From these, 46% of the prostheses allowed proper access for performing proximal hygiene whereas 54% of the prostheses precluded proper access. Poor access for proximal hygiene displayed tendency towards statistical significance with peri-implant disease (OR = 2.31; P = 0.090), in particular with peri-implant mucositis (OR = 2.43; P = 0.082) when compared to good access. In addition, an association was observed to increased levels of mucosal redness (P = 0.026) and the full-mouth bleeding score (P = 0.018). On the other hand, the presence of peri-implant disease was related to self-reported assessment of oral hygiene measures (P = 0.015) and to patient perception of gingival/mucosal bleeding when performing oral hygiene (P = 0.026). In turn, the diagnosis of peri-implant disease was significantly associated to the quantity and quality of information provided at the time of implant therapy (P = 0.004), including the influence of confounders upon disease occurrence (P = 0.038) CONCLUSIONS: To a certain extent, accessibility for self-performed proximal hygiene is associated to the peri-implant condition. On the other hand, the information received by the patient from the dental professional is essential for self-monitoring of the peri-implant conditions and for alerting to the possible presence of disorders.