{"title":"Association between prosthesis contour and peri-implantitis in patients compliant with supportive periodontal therapy: A retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Yu-Hsiang Chou, Wei-Lin Hsiao, Chun-Jung Chen, Ying-Chu Lin, Pei-Feng Liu, Kai-Fang Hu, Chih-Wen Cheng","doi":"10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_23_00236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Poor contour of the implant restoration causes plaque accumulation and increases the risk of peri-implantitis. This study aimed to investigate whether the prosthodontic components of dental implants were associated with the prevalence of peri-implantitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 185 patients with 348 implants who underwent at least 1-year follow-up after the delivery of the prosthesis from February 2010 to January 2021. Demographic data of the patients and implants and the follow-up period were recorded. The emergence angle, type of cervical crown contour, and contour angle were analyzed using annual bite-wing radiographs. Peri-implantitis in this study was diagnosed if the peri-implant bone loss was greater than 2 mm between the bite-wing radiographs taken at baseline and the latest. Chi-square test, two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the differences and odds ratios between the peri-implantitis and non-peri-implantitis groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The incidence of peri-implantitis was 14.9% during a follow-up period of 1509 days after the delivery of the prosthesis for at least 1-year. Based on the prevalence of non-peri-implantitis and after adjusting for confounding factors, the risk factors identified were bone types for implants (native bone vs. alveolar ridge preservation: adjusted odds ratio = 2.43, P = 0.04). Sex, arch, and guided bone regeneration vs. alveolar ridge preservation have the potential for a statistical difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with implants at alveolar ridge preservation sites, implants in the native bone were more prone to peri-implantitis. Further randomized controlled trials are required to determine these associations.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_23_00236","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Poor contour of the implant restoration causes plaque accumulation and increases the risk of peri-implantitis. This study aimed to investigate whether the prosthodontic components of dental implants were associated with the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
Methods: We enrolled 185 patients with 348 implants who underwent at least 1-year follow-up after the delivery of the prosthesis from February 2010 to January 2021. Demographic data of the patients and implants and the follow-up period were recorded. The emergence angle, type of cervical crown contour, and contour angle were analyzed using annual bite-wing radiographs. Peri-implantitis in this study was diagnosed if the peri-implant bone loss was greater than 2 mm between the bite-wing radiographs taken at baseline and the latest. Chi-square test, two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the differences and odds ratios between the peri-implantitis and non-peri-implantitis groups.
Results: The incidence of peri-implantitis was 14.9% during a follow-up period of 1509 days after the delivery of the prosthesis for at least 1-year. Based on the prevalence of non-peri-implantitis and after adjusting for confounding factors, the risk factors identified were bone types for implants (native bone vs. alveolar ridge preservation: adjusted odds ratio = 2.43, P = 0.04). Sex, arch, and guided bone regeneration vs. alveolar ridge preservation have the potential for a statistical difference.
Conclusions: Compared with implants at alveolar ridge preservation sites, implants in the native bone were more prone to peri-implantitis. Further randomized controlled trials are required to determine these associations.