Center for Research on Dental Implants, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences (DSMOB), University of Chieti-Pescara, Via dei vestini, 31, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jun;25(6):3441-3451. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03666-x. Epub 2020 Nov 5.
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether peri-implant clinical parameters (modified plaque index (mPI), bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (B/SOP)) and local factors (type of prostheses, screw emergence, platform diameter, and abutment angulation) might contribute to the development of additional bone loss and peri-implantitis around dental implants.
Two hundred seventy-seven external hex connection implants placed in the posterior maxilla of 124 patients were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into two groups: physiologic bone loss < 2 mm (PBL) or additional bone loss ≥ 2 mm (ABL). GEE logistic regression was applied to evaluate the influence of type of prostheses (implant-supported single crown (ISSC), fixed partial denture (ISFPD), and full denture (ISFD)) and clinical parameters (mPI and S/BOP) on bone loss.
Among the 277 implants, 159 (57.4%) presented PBL and 118 (42.6%) presented ABL. Within the ABL group, 20.6% implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. mPI significantly correlated with the type of prosthesis and the highest value of mPI (index = 3) was observed in ISFD (23.8%). Moreover, peri-implantitis was more frequently associated with ISFD (32.79%) than ISSC and ISFDP (13.79% and 13.48, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: ISFD in the posterior maxilla presented high rates of ABL and showed a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. None of the local factors seemed to contribute to the development of these conditions. Further investigations are needed to prospectively support the results of the present study.
Patients rehabilitated with ISFD should be carefully monitored and have more frequent maintenance visits to prevent or control peri-implant bone loss.
本研究旨在探讨种植体周围临床参数(改良菌斑指数(mPI)、探诊时出血和/或溢脓(B/SOP))和局部因素(修复体类型、螺丝暴露、平台直径和基台角度)是否与种植体周围额外骨丧失和种植体周围炎的发生有关。
回顾性分析了 124 名患者的 277 个外六角连接种植体,这些种植体均置于上颌后牙区。将其分为两组:生理性骨丧失<2mm(PBL)或额外骨丧失≥2mm(ABL)。应用广义估计方程(GEE)逻辑回归分析修复体类型(种植体支持的单冠(ISSC)、固定局部义齿(ISFPD)和全口义齿(ISFD))和临床参数(mPI 和 B/SOP)对骨丧失的影响。
在 277 个种植体中,159 个(57.4%)出现 PBL,118 个(42.6%)出现 ABL。在 ABL 组中,20.6%的种植体被诊断为种植体周围炎。mPI 与修复体类型显著相关,ISFD 组的 mPI 值最高(指数=3)(23.8%)。此外,ISFD 与种植体周围炎的相关性更高(32.79%),而 ISSC 和 ISFPD 则较低(分别为 13.79%和 13.48%)。
上颌后牙区的 ISFD 出现较高的 ABL 发生率,且种植体周围炎的患病率较高。局部因素均与这些情况的发生无关。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来支持本研究的结果。
接受 ISFD 修复的患者应密切监测,并增加维护就诊次数,以预防或控制种植体周围骨丧失。