Cargando…

How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Doornewaard, Ron, Jacquet, Wolfgang, Cosyn, Jan, De Bruyn, Hugo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6220966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13264
_version_ 1783368927403835392
author Doornewaard, Ron
Jacquet, Wolfgang
Cosyn, Jan
De Bruyn, Hugo
author_facet Doornewaard, Ron
Jacquet, Wolfgang
Cosyn, Jan
De Bruyn, Hugo
author_sort Doornewaard, Ron
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm. RESULTS: Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. CONCLUSION: Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6220966
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62209662018-11-15 How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review Doornewaard, Ron Jacquet, Wolfgang Cosyn, Jan De Bruyn, Hugo Clin Oral Implants Res The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle OBJECTIVES: The aim of this critical review was to evaluate whether commonly used biologic diagnostic parameters correspond to implant survival and peri‐implantitis prevalence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Publications from 2011 to 2017 were selected by an electronic search using the Pubmed database of the US National Library of Medicine. Prospective and retrospective studies with a mean follow‐up time of at least 5 years and reporting prevalence of peri‐implantitis as well as mean bone loss and standard deviation were selected. The correlation between reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis and reported implant survival, mean follow‐up time, mean bone loss, mean probing depth, and mean bleeding on probing was calculated. Mean bone loss and standard deviation were used for estimation of proportion of implants with bone loss exceeding 1, 2, and 3 mm. RESULTS: Full‐text analysis was performed for 255 papers from 4,173 available ones, and 41 met all the inclusion criteria. The overall mean weighted survival rate was 96.9% (89.9%–100%) and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis ranged between 0% and 39.7%, based on 15 different case definitions. The overall weighted bone loss was 1.1 mm based on 8,182 implants and an average mean loading time ranging from 5 to 20 years. No correlation was found between mean bone loss and the reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. The estimated prevalence of implants with bone loss above 2 mm was 23%. The overall weighted mean probing depth was 3.3 mm, and mean weighted bleeding was 52.2%. Only a weak correlation was found between survival and function time (r = −0.49). There was no relation between the probing depth or bleeding and the mean bone loss, mean follow‐up time, and reported prevalence of peri‐implantitis. CONCLUSION: Biologic parameters mean probing depth and mean bleeding on probing do not correlate with mean bone loss and this irrespective of follow‐up. Case definition for peri‐implantitis varied significantly between studies indicating that an unambiguous definition based on a specified threshold for bone loss is not agreed upon in the literature. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-10-10 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6220966/ /pubmed/30306697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13264 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
Doornewaard, Ron
Jacquet, Wolfgang
Cosyn, Jan
De Bruyn, Hugo
How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title_full How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title_fullStr How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title_full_unstemmed How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title_short How do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? A critical review
title_sort how do peri‐implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri‐implantitis? a critical review
topic The 5th EAO Consensus Conference, 7–10 February 2018, Pfäffikon, Schwyz, Switzerland. Guest Editor: Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6220966/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30306697
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13264
work_keys_str_mv AT doornewaardron howdoperiimplantbiologicparameterscorrespondwithimplantsurvivalandperiimplantitisacriticalreview
AT jacquetwolfgang howdoperiimplantbiologicparameterscorrespondwithimplantsurvivalandperiimplantitisacriticalreview
AT cosynjan howdoperiimplantbiologicparameterscorrespondwithimplantsurvivalandperiimplantitisacriticalreview
AT debruynhugo howdoperiimplantbiologicparameterscorrespondwithimplantsurvivalandperiimplantitisacriticalreview