Kesar Nikolina, Weigl Paul, Nentwig Georg-Hubertus, Krebs Mischa
Doctoral Graduate, Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Head, Department of Postgraduate Education, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine (Carolinum), University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Nov;130(5):690-697. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.030. Epub 2022 Jan 10.
Information on the epidemiology and etiopathology of peri-implant diseases in reference to prostheses is sparse.
The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to analyze the prevalence and risk of peri-implant diseases based on the type of prosthesis.
A total of 274 implants in 106 patients were evaluated by clinical and radiological examination. Peri-implant mucositis was defined by bleeding on probing, whereas peri-implantitis was defined by additional bone loss ≥1.5 mm since seating of the definitive prosthesis. Prosthetic design and anamnestic risk factors were assessed in a regression analysis, whereas clinical and radiological differences between the prosthesis groups were compared by the Pearson chi-squared test (α=.05 for all procedures).
The median observation period was 18 years. Seventy-two implants were restored with single crowns, 138 implants with fixed partial dentures, and 64 implants with removable prostheses. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed more often in implants supporting fixed partial dentures (42.8%), whereas peri-implantitis was found more frequently in implants supporting removable prostheses (31.3%) (overall distribution pattern: P<.001). The type of prosthetic restoration was confirmed to be an independent prognostic risk factor regarding peri-implant diseases (P=.005). Additionally, increased bone loss was found with implant-supported removable prostheses, regardless of peri-implantitis (P<.001).
The type of prosthetic restoration was identified as an independent risk factor for the development of peri-implant diseases. Particularly, implants supporting double crown-retained removable prostheses might be at risk.
关于种植体周围疾病在修复体方面的流行病学和病因病理学信息稀少。
本回顾性临床研究的目的是基于修复体类型分析种植体周围疾病的患病率和风险。
通过临床和影像学检查对106例患者的274颗种植体进行评估。种植体周围黏膜炎通过探诊出血来定义，而种植体周围炎则通过自最终修复体就位后额外骨吸收≥1.5mm来定义。在回归分析中评估修复体设计和既往危险因素，而通过Pearson卡方检验比较修复体组之间的临床和影像学差异（所有程序α = 0.05）。
中位观察期为18年。72颗种植体采用单冠修复，138颗种植体采用固定局部义齿修复，64颗种植体采用可摘修复体修复。种植体周围黏膜炎在支持固定局部义齿的种植体中诊断更为常见（42.8%），而种植体周围炎在支持可摘修复体的种植体中更为常见（31.3%）（总体分布模式：P < 0.001）。修复体类型被确认为种植体周围疾病的独立预后危险因素（P = 0.005）。此外，无论是否存在种植体周围炎，种植体支持的可摘修复体均发现骨吸收增加（P < 0.001）。
修复体类型被确定为种植体周围疾病发生的独立危险因素。特别是，支持双冠固位可摘修复体的种植体可能有风险。
