Influence of repeated implant‐abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in complete arch restorations. A retrospective analysis

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1111/cid.13381

M. Krebs, L. Greilich, P. Weigl, P. Hess, I. Dahmer, A. Begić

{"title":"Influence of repeated implant‐abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in complete arch restorations. A retrospective analysis","authors":"M. Krebs, L. Greilich, P. Weigl, P. Hess, I. Dahmer, A. Begić","doi":"10.1111/cid.13381","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeTo evaluate the effects of repeated abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases.Materials and MethodsA total of 27 edentulous patients (n = 108 implants) immediately restored with double‐crown retained implant‐supported prostheses were identified for this retrospective study. The test included the one‐abutment, one‐time care concept (n = 18 patients, n = 72 implants, OAOT) and the control abutment replacement (n = 9 patients, n = 36 implants, AR). A mixed effects model regression was conducted for the variable diagnosis (healthy, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis) with predictors abutment replacement (presence/absence), number of abutment replacement, category of keratinized mucosa (KM) (2 < KM ≥2 mm), and radiographic bone loss (BL).ResultsAfter 3–15 years (mean 10.2 ± 2.8 years), the prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis in patients in the AR group was 11.1% and 88.9%, corresponding to 22.2% and 55.6% at the implant level, respectively. In OAOT group, none of the implants showed peri‐implant mucositis, whereas the prevalence for peri‐implantitis at patient and implant level amounted to 5.6% and 5.6%, respectively. The increased number of abutment replacements was significantly associated with the increased probability to diagnose peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (OR: 6.13; 95% CI [2.61, 14.39]) (p < 0.001), whereas the presence of keratinized mucosa was not founded as a significant cofounder. The estimated mean BL in AR group was 1.38 mm larger than in OAOT group (p = 0.0190).ConclusionsThe OAOT concept was associated with a lower prevalence of peri‐implant diseases.","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13381","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate the effects of repeated abutment manipulation on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases.Materials and MethodsA total of 27 edentulous patients (n = 108 implants) immediately restored with double‐crown retained implant‐supported prostheses were identified for this retrospective study. The test included the one‐abutment, one‐time care concept (n = 18 patients, n = 72 implants, OAOT) and the control abutment replacement (n = 9 patients, n = 36 implants, AR). A mixed effects model regression was conducted for the variable diagnosis (healthy, peri‐implant mucositis, and peri‐implantitis) with predictors abutment replacement (presence/absence), number of abutment replacement, category of keratinized mucosa (KM) (2 < KM ≥2 mm), and radiographic bone loss (BL).ResultsAfter 3–15 years (mean 10.2 ± 2.8 years), the prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis in patients in the AR group was 11.1% and 88.9%, corresponding to 22.2% and 55.6% at the implant level, respectively. In OAOT group, none of the implants showed peri‐implant mucositis, whereas the prevalence for peri‐implantitis at patient and implant level amounted to 5.6% and 5.6%, respectively. The increased number of abutment replacements was significantly associated with the increased probability to diagnose peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis (OR: 6.13; 95% CI [2.61, 14.39]) (p < 0.001), whereas the presence of keratinized mucosa was not founded as a significant cofounder. The estimated mean BL in AR group was 1.38 mm larger than in OAOT group (p = 0.0190).ConclusionsThe OAOT concept was associated with a lower prevalence of peri‐implant diseases.

查看原文本刊更多论文

反复操作种植体-基台对全牙弓修复体种植体周围疾病发病率的影响。回顾性分析

目的评估重复基台操作对种植体周围疾病发生率的影响。材料和方法在这项回顾性研究中，共确定了 27 位无牙颌患者（n = 108 个种植体）立即使用双冠固位的种植体支持修复体进行修复。测试包括单基台、一次性护理概念（n = 18 名患者，n = 72 个种植体，OAOT）和对照基台替代（n = 9 名患者，n = 36 个种植体，AR）。对诊断变量（健康、种植体周围粘膜炎和种植体周围炎）与基台置换（有/无）、基台置换次数、角化粘膜（KM）类别（2 < KM ≥2 mm）和放射学骨质流失（BL）进行了混合效应模型回归。结果3-15年后（平均10.2 ± 2.8年），AR组患者种植体周围粘膜炎和种植体周围炎的发病率分别为11.1%和88.9%，种植体水平的发病率分别为22.2%和55.6%。在 OAOT 组中，没有一个种植体出现种植体周围粘膜炎，而患者和种植体水平的种植体周围炎发病率分别为 5.6% 和 5.6%。基台更换次数的增加与诊断种植体周围粘膜炎和种植体周围炎的概率增加有显著相关性（OR：6.13；95% CI [2.61，14.39]）（p <0.001），而角化粘膜的存在并不是一个重要的辅助因素。AR组的估计平均BL比OAOT组大1.38 mm (p = 0.0190)。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.