Cargando…

Evaluation of peri-implant condition in periodontally compromised patients

AIMS: The aim of the study is to evaluate the profile of peri-implant tissues in periodontally compromised patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vivo – cross sectional study design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight implants were evaluated, clinically and radiographically, installed in seven individual...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lopes, Guilherme Da Rocha Scalzer, Feitosa, Alfredo Carlos Rodrigues, Suaid, Fabrícia Ferreira, Matos, Jefferson David Melo De, Vasconcelos, John Eversong Lucena De, Vaz, Sergio Lins De Azevedo, Andrade, Valdir Cabral, Nishioka, Renato Sussumu, Guerra, Selva Maria Gonçalves
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6803800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31649436
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_197_19
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: The aim of the study is to evaluate the profile of peri-implant tissues in periodontally compromised patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: In vivo – cross sectional study design. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight implants were evaluated, clinically and radiographically, installed in seven individuals treated by the same team of professionals, during the years 1997 and 2005 in a private dental clinic in Vitória, ES, Brazil; that time of data collection, all implants were at least 10 years of functional loading. The variables related to the dental implants evaluated were: visible Plaque Index, Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and bone level, to relate them to the classification of dental implants. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: The Chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis test were adopted. RESULTS: The total of 58 implants were classified: 11 (18.9%) as healthy and 12 (20.7%) as clinically stable. The other 35 implants (60.4%) had some type of peri-implant inflammation, 20 of them (34.5%) were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and 15 (25.9%) with peri-implantitis. Among the variables studied, the results showed statistically significant differences for implant location (P = 0.001) and GBI (P = 0.03). Most of the maxillary implants (85.7%) were classified for some type of peri-implant disease. For the implants which resulted in Score 1 for GBI, most of them (75.0%) were also classified for some type of peri-implant disease. CONCLUSIONS: Dental implants placed in periodontally compromised patients may have high long-term survival rates. However, most implants were classified with some type of peri-implant inflammation.